linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gfs2: remove dead code in _

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: <CAHc6FU5H-Ju9129Xr3RGA6DePDL58tQ7nOkSJXdig4gJc1w+WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:50:47 +0100
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To:     Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
Cc:     rpeterso@...hat.com, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        trix@...hat.com, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gfs2: remove dead code in __acquires

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 2:54 AM Su Hui <suhui@...china.com> wrote:
>
> clang static analyzer complains that value stored to 'gh' is never read.
> The code of this line is useless after commit 0b93bac2271e
> ("gfs2: Remove LM_FLAG_PRIORITY flag"). Remove this code to save space.
>
> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>
> ---
>  fs/gfs2/glock.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/glock.c b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> index 3772a5d9e85c..347f8a020c82 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/glock.c
> @@ -1524,7 +1524,6 @@ __acquires(&gl->gl_lockref.lock)
>                 return;
>         }
>         list_add_tail(&gh->gh_list, insert_pt);
> -       gh = list_first_entry(&gl->gl_holders, struct gfs2_holder, gh_list);
>         spin_unlock(&gl->gl_lockref.lock);
>         if (sdp->sd_lockstruct.ls_ops->lm_cancel)
>                 sdp->sd_lockstruct.ls_ops->lm_cancel(gl);
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Thanks, I'll add this.

(The subject "gfs2: remove dead code in __acquires" is misleading
because the function this is in is called add_to_queue(); __acquires
is just an annotation.)

Andreas