[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7154e2c-0438-87d1-9edc-7eb1aad40cd1@hust.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 21:40:41 +0800
From: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Tomas Henzl <thenzl@...hat.com>
Cc: Jing Xu <U202112064@...t.edu.cn>,
Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
Suganath Prabu Subramani
<suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com,
MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: mpt3sas: mpt3sas_debugfs: return value check of
`mpt3sas_debugfs_root`
On 5/3/23 01:06, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:53:10PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>> On 4/23/23 14:25, Jing Xu wrote:
>>> Smatch complains that:
>>> mpt3sas_init_debugfs() warn: 'mpt3sas_debugfs_root' is an error
>>> pointer or valid
>>>
>>> There is no need to check the return value of the debugfs_create_dir()
>>> function, just delete the dead code.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 2b01b293f359 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Capture IOC data for debugging purposes")
>>> Signed-off-by: Jing Xu <U202112064@...t.edu.cn>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_debugfs.c | 2 --
>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_debugfs.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_debugfs.c
>>> index a6ab1db81167..c92e08c130b9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_debugfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_debugfs.c
>>> @@ -99,8 +99,6 @@ static const struct file_operations mpt3sas_debugfs_iocdump_fops = {
>>> void mpt3sas_init_debugfs(void)
>>> {
>>> mpt3sas_debugfs_root = debugfs_create_dir("mpt3sas", NULL);
>>> - if (!mpt3sas_debugfs_root)
>>> - pr_info("mpt3sas: Cannot create debugfs root\n");
>> Hi Jing,
>> most drivers just ignore the return value but here the author wanted to
>> have the information logged.
>> Can you instead of removing the message modify the 'if' condition so it
>> suits the author's intention?
>
> This code was always just wrong.
>
> The history of this is slightly complicated and boring. These days it's
> harmless dead code so I guess it's less bad than before.
Hi Dan and Tomas,
Any conclusion about this patch? The student Jing Xu is not sure about
how to revise this patch.
>
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists