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

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

On 1/16/24 13:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
Why do you think so? Conditionally, runm is used later on as well. I don't
think the checker should complain about keeping the value single source.

If you agree, want to offer your RB?

- Danilo
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>