[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJPhTRz8B8jIjjov@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:12:13 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: David Binderman <dcb314@...mail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"irogers@...gle.com" <irogers@...gle.com>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-6.16/tools/perf/util/tool_pmu.c:242: Pointless test ?
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 06:09:40AM +0000, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> Static analyser cppcheck says:
>
> linux-6.16/tools/perf/util/tool_pmu.c:242:15: warning: Opposite inner 'if' condition leads to a dead code block. [oppositeInnerCondition]
>
> Source code is
>
> for (thread = 0; thread < nthreads; thread++) {
> if (thread >= nthreads)
> break;
>
> Suggest remove if test.
Thanks for the report. Do you want us to remove or will you send a
patch? It'd be great if you can send one.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists