linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: remove redundant assignment to variable ret

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]

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 12:14:22 -0600
From: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: remove redundant assignment
 to variable ret

On 1/6/24 9:22 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Variable ret is being assigned a value that is never read, the variable
> is being re-assigned again a few statements later. Remove it.
> 
> Cleans up clang scan build warning:
> warning: Value stored to 'ret' is never read [deadcode.DeadStores]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c | 2 --
>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> index 263fc3a1b87e..f975de059ba0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> @@ -441,8 +441,6 @@ static int ti_ads7950_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
>   	if (ret)
>   		goto out;
>   
> -	ret = ((st->single_rx >> 12) & BIT(offset)) ? 1 : 0;
> -
>   	/* Revert back to original settings */
>   	st->cmd_settings_bitmask &= ~TI_ADS7950_CR_GPIO_DATA;
>   	st->single_tx = TI_ADS7950_MAN_CMD_SETTINGS(st);

This does not look like the correct fix. This is the intended return value of the function in the case of no errors. So we probably need to introduce a new variable instead so that it doesn't get written over.