linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Remove unnecessary ret init

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: <b9368410-e084-8d4e-1c81-55c4e6a22434@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:12:00 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
cc: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@...el.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, 
    Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, 
    LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Remove unnecessary ret
 init

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Ashok Raj wrote:

> Hi Ilpo
> 
> thanks for looking into it.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:03:28PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > ret variable is assigned unconditionally in ifs_load_firmware(), thus
> > remove the unnecessary initialization of it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > index a1ee1a74fc3c..03e49b836a6b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
> > @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev)
> >  	unsigned int expected_size;
> >  	const struct firmware *fw;
> >  	char scan_path[64];
> > -	int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> 
> Looks reasonable to me. 
> 
> I can keep this as a separate cleanup patch, or merge the change in this
> patch.
> 
> What ever Hans/You prefer. 

Hi,

I was thinking of merging it myself into pdx86 review-ilpo -> next after 
allowing it sit on the queue a day or two. IMO, doesn't need to be more 
complicated than the usual process kernel process with patches, it would 
just take extra time from all the more there are middlemens handling the 
patch (after all this is just a trivial cleanup which I noticed while 
reviewing the patches you sent and since it didn't conflict the series, 
I just sent the obvious cleanup).

But that's assuming you don't have anything conflicting beyond those 
patches which you sent? If that's the case, it would be better for you to 
take care of it so just let me and I won't merge it myself until it comes 
back.

-- 
 i.