Nouveau - Jan 2024 - [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret

The variable ret is being assigned a value but it isn't being
read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so ret can be
removed.

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 at gmail.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
@@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
 nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
 {
 	u64 runm = 0;
-	int ret, i;
+	int i;
 
-	if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
+	if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
 		return runm;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < device->runlists; i++) {
-- 
2.39.2

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Colin Ian King
wrote:
> The variable ret is being assigned a value but it isn't being
> read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so ret can be
> removed.
> 
> 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 at gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
>  nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
>  {
>  	u64 runm = 0;
> -	int ret, i;
> +	int i;
>  
> -	if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
> +	if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
>  		return runm;
Could we return a literal zero here?  Otherwise, I'm surprised this
doesn't trigger a static checker warning.

regards,
dan carpenter