linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] accel/qaic: remove redundant assignment to pointer pexec

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <e457b416-3e63-0bae-0cd7-7788b43f30c1@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:00:09 -0600
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@...cinc.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
        Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv@...cinc.com>,
        Pranjal Ramajor Asha Kanojiya <quic_pkanojiy@...cinc.com>,
        Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
CC:     <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] accel/qaic: remove redundant assignment to pointer
 pexec

On 7/25/2023 5:40 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Pointer pexec is being assigned a value however it is never read. The
> assignment is redundant and can be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> index e9a1cb779b30..8a6cb14f490e 100644
> --- a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> +++ b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
> @@ -1320,7 +1320,6 @@ static int __qaic_execute_bo_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct dr
>   	user_data = u64_to_user_ptr(args->data);
>   
>   	exec = kcalloc(args->hdr.count, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> -	pexec = (struct qaic_partial_execute_entry *)exec;
>   	if (!exec)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
>   

It does look like pexec is not used in this function after it was 
refactored.  Shouldn't the declaration at the beginning of the function 
also be removed?