netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/13] wimax/i2400m: make return of 0 explicit

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: <537A059B.9050509@bfs.de>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2014 15:22:35 +0200
From:	walter harms <wharms@....de>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC:	Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...el.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-wimax@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/13] wimax/i2400m: make return of 0 explicit



Am 19.05.2014 13:30, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, walter harms wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Am 19.05.2014 06:31, schrieb Julia Lawall:
>>> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>>>
>>> Delete unnecessary local variable whose value is always 0 and that hides
>>> the fact that the result is always 0.
>>>
>>> A simplified version of the semantic patch that fixes this problem is as
>>> follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>>>
>>> // <smpl>
>>> @r exists@
>>> local idexpression ret;
>>> expression e;
>>> position p;
>>> @@
>>>
>>> -ret = 0;
>>> ... when != ret = e
>>> return
>>> - ret
>>> + 0
>>>   ;
>>> // </smpl>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Alternatively, is an error code wanted under the if?
>>>
>>>  drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/driver.c |    7 ++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/driver.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/driver.c
>>> index 9c34d2f..901a534 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/driver.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/driver.c
>>> @@ -500,26 +500,23 @@ int i2400m_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *notifier,
>>>   */
>>>  int i2400m_pre_reset(struct i2400m *i2400m)
>>>  {
>>> -	int result;
>>>  	struct device *dev = i2400m_dev(i2400m);
>>>
>>>  	d_fnstart(3, dev, "(i2400m %p)\n", i2400m);
>>>  	d_printf(1, dev, "pre-reset shut down\n");
>>>
>>> -	result = 0;
>>>  	mutex_lock(&i2400m->init_mutex);
>>>  	if (i2400m->updown) {
>>>  		netif_tx_disable(i2400m->wimax_dev.net_dev);
>>>  		__i2400m_dev_stop(i2400m);
>>> -		result = 0;
>>>  		/* down't set updown to zero -- this way
>>>  		 * post_reset can restore properly */
>>>  	}
>>>  	mutex_unlock(&i2400m->init_mutex);
>>>  	if (i2400m->bus_release)
>>>  		i2400m->bus_release(i2400m);
>>> -	d_fnend(3, dev, "(i2400m %p) = %d\n", i2400m, result);
>>> -	return result;
>>> +	d_fnend(3, dev, "(i2400m %p) = %d\n", i2400m, 0);
>>
>>
>> 	d_fnend(3, dev, "i2400m=%p\n", i2400m);
> 
> All the other logging messages in this file seem to have the form
> (i2400m %p) = %d
> or (i2400m %p) = void in the case of a function that has no return value.
> I don't know if a return value is wanted here, but since the function is
> exported, perhaps it is best not to change its type.


I got my "inspiration" from d_fnstart().
As i see it the whole function is void so printing a debug msg with a bogus
return value may confuse some people.

re,
 wh


> julia
> 
>> or something like that
>> re,
>>  wh
>>
>>> +	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(i2400m_pre_reset);
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html