linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] usb: dwc3: remove dead code in dwc3_otg_get

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZEdhLyEw_x49zZKp@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 07:12:15 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Liang Yuhang <lihuya@...t.edu.cn>
Cc:     Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>,
        hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2] usb: dwc3: remove dead code in dwc3_otg_get_irq

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:55:32AM +0800, Liang Yuhang wrote:
> platform_get_irq() only return non-zero irq number on success, or
> negative error number on failure.
> 
> There is no need to check the return value of platform_get_irq()
> to determine the return value of dwc3_otg_get_irq(), removing
> them to solve this problem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Liang Yuhang <lihuya@...t.edu.cn>
> 
> ---
> v1 -> v2: change name to real name
> ---
>  drivers/usb/dwc3/drd.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)

Why is this a RESEND?  And why is it resent?  You changed something from
v1 to v2, but that does not mean it is a resend.

Note, I STRONGLY encourage people to get experience by working in
drivers/staging/ first, before going out to the rest of the kernel and
dealing with fast-moving subsystems.  Perhaps try that first?

thanks,

greg k-h