linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: sm750fb: Remove unused return value in program_mode

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

Message-ID: <2023101836-earful-freight-9c51@gregkh>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 15:23:13 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dorcas Litunya <anonolitunya@...il.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
        dan.carpenter@...aro.org, andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: sm750fb: Remove unused return value in
 program_mode_registers()

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:59:27PM +0300, Dorcas Litunya wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 02:06:41PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Dorcas AnonoLitunya wrote:
> > 
> > > Modifies the return type of program_mode_registers()
> > > to void from int as the return value is being ignored in
> > > all subsequent function calls.
> > >
> > > This improves code readability and maintainability.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dorcas AnonoLitunya <anonolitunya@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c | 5 ++---
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > index 83ace6cc9583..e15039238232 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_mode.c
> > > @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ display_control_adjust_sm750le(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  /* only timing related registers will be  programed */
> > > -static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > -				  struct pll_value *pll)
> > > +static void program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > > +				   struct pll_value *pll)
> > >  {
> > >  	int ret = 0;
> > >  	int cnt = 0;
> > > @@ -202,7 +202,6 @@ static int program_mode_registers(struct mode_parameter *mode_param,
> > >  	} else {
> > >  		ret = -1;
> > 
> > Is it still useful to have ret = -1?  Maybe the ret variable is not useful
> > at all any more, but one would have to check the parts of the function
> > that aren't shown.
> >
> I agree Julia. I will remove the setting part for ret = -1 but keep the
> ret variable just in case it is being used by parts of the function not
> shown.

No, don't do that, you will trip other static checkers if you do so.
Remove it entirely as it is obviously not needed anymore.

thanks,

greg k-h