netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: remove set but not used variables 'del_llc, del_llc

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: <7e36e689-f5b7-0140-cd04-be62dcf08fbc@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 11:39:12 +0200
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/smc: remove set but not used variables
 'del_llc, del_llc_resp'

On 06/05/2020 08:55, YueHaibing wrote:
> Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning:

Thank you, good catch. Your patch will be part of our next patch submission.

Regards, Karsten

> 
> net/smc/smc_llc.c: In function 'smc_llc_cli_conf_link':
> net/smc/smc_llc.c:753:31: warning:
>  variable 'del_llc' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>   struct smc_llc_msg_del_link *del_llc;
>                                ^
> net/smc/smc_llc.c: In function 'smc_llc_process_srv_delete_link':
> net/smc/smc_llc.c:1311:33: warning:
>  variable 'del_llc_resp' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>     struct smc_llc_msg_del_link *del_llc_resp;
>                                  ^
> 
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> ---
>  net/smc/smc_llc.c | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_llc.c b/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> index 4cc583678ac7..391237b601fe 100644
> --- a/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> +++ b/net/smc/smc_llc.c
> @@ -750,7 +750,6 @@ static int smc_llc_cli_conf_link(struct smc_link *link,
>  				 enum smc_lgr_type lgr_new_t)
>  {
>  	struct smc_link_group *lgr = link->lgr;
> -	struct smc_llc_msg_del_link *del_llc;
>  	struct smc_llc_qentry *qentry = NULL;
>  	int rc = 0;
>  
> @@ -764,7 +763,6 @@ static int smc_llc_cli_conf_link(struct smc_link *link,
>  	}
>  	if (qentry->msg.raw.hdr.common.type != SMC_LLC_CONFIRM_LINK) {
>  		/* received DELETE_LINK instead */
> -		del_llc = &qentry->msg.delete_link;
>  		qentry->msg.raw.hdr.flags |= SMC_LLC_FLAG_RESP;
>  		smc_llc_send_message(link, &qentry->msg);
>  		smc_llc_flow_qentry_del(&lgr->llc_flow_lcl);
> @@ -1308,16 +1306,12 @@ static void smc_llc_process_srv_delete_link(struct smc_link_group *lgr)
>  		 * enqueued DELETE_LINK request (forward it)
>  		 */
>  		if (!smc_llc_send_message(lnk, &qentry->msg)) {
> -			struct smc_llc_msg_del_link *del_llc_resp;
>  			struct smc_llc_qentry *qentry2;
>  
>  			qentry2 = smc_llc_wait(lgr, lnk, SMC_LLC_WAIT_TIME,
>  					       SMC_LLC_DELETE_LINK);
> -			if (!qentry2) {
> -			} else {
> -				del_llc_resp = &qentry2->msg.delete_link;
> +			if (qentry2)
>  				smc_llc_flow_qentry_del(&lgr->llc_flow_lcl);
> -			}
>  		}
>  	}
>  	smcr_link_clear(lnk_del, true);
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Karsten

(I'm a dude)