linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant 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]

Message-ID: <aafe669f-b322-4f22-a48e-564e3eb3447f@moroto.mountain>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:31:27 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
Cc: Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>, Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable
 ret

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> The variable ret is being assigned a value but it isn't being
> read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so ret can be
> removed.
> 
> Cleans up clang scan build warning:
> warning: Although the value stored to 'ret' is used in the enclosing
> expression, the value is never actually read from 'ret'
> [deadcode.DeadStores]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
>  nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
>  {
>  	u64 runm = 0;
> -	int ret, i;
> +	int i;
>  
> -	if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
> +	if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
>  		return runm;

Could we return a literal zero here?  Otherwise, I'm surprised this
doesn't trigger a static checker warning.

regards,
dan carpenter