Dan Carpenter
2024-Jan-16 12:31 UTC
[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
Danilo Krummrich
2024-Jan-22 23:04 UTC
[PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
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 >
Maybe Matching Threads
- [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
- [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
- [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret
- [PATCH 0/5] Improve Robust Channel (RC) recovery for Turing
- [PATCH 1/2] nouveau/dmem: Fix privileged error in copy engine channel