linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] bcachefs: remove redundant variable tmp

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: <zoopxygtnqakxp566audzvwtnpordw7k47um4afdq3xoeyognn@6mvubblz6525>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:33:33 -0500
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>, 
	linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] bcachefs: remove redundant variable tmp

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:01:05AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:07:23AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > The variable tmp is being assigned a value but it isn't being
> > read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so tmp can be
> > removed.
> > 
> 
> I assume this intends to refer to s/tmp/ret/ ...
> 
> > 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>
> > ---
> >  fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c | 4 +---
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c b/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c
> > index 95f46cb3b5bd..827316a27431 100644
> > --- a/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c
> > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c
> > @@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ static int bch2_rebalance_thread(void *arg)
> >  	struct bch_fs *c = arg;
> >  	struct bch_fs_rebalance *r = &c->rebalance;
> >  	struct moving_context ctxt;
> > -	int ret;
> >  
> >  	set_freezable();
> >  
> > @@ -393,8 +392,7 @@ static int bch2_rebalance_thread(void *arg)
> >  			      writepoint_ptr(&c->rebalance_write_point),
> >  			      true);
> >  
> > -	while (!kthread_should_stop() &&
> > -	       !(ret = do_rebalance(&ctxt)))
> > +	while (!kthread_should_stop() && !do_rebalance(&ctxt))
> 
> Part of me wonders if this was intended to return ret, as that appears
> to bubble back through kthread_stop(). That said, we don't check for
> error there either (i.e. bch2_rebalance_stop()), so this seems
> reasonable enough to me to address the warning:

yeah, the only reason to return errors here is to log them, and they've
already been logged at this point.

Thanks, applying this