drivers/xen/gntdev.c | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because
ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to
non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence
the check is redundant and can be removed.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
drivers/xen/gntdev.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
index 10cc5e9e612a..07d80b176118 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
@@ -524,11 +524,6 @@ static int gntdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *flip)
}
#endif
- if (ret) {
- kfree(priv);
- return ret;
- }
-
flip->private_data = priv;
#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DMA_ALLOC
priv->dma_dev = gntdev_miscdev.this_device;
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > > The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because > ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to > non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence > the check is redundant and can be removed. Which version did you patch against? In current master the above statement is not true. Juergen > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> > --- > drivers/xen/gntdev.c | 5 ----- > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c > index 10cc5e9e612a..07d80b176118 100644 > --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c > +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c > @@ -524,11 +524,6 @@ static int gntdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *flip) > } > #endif > > - if (ret) { > - kfree(priv); > - return ret; > - } > - > flip->private_data = priv; > #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DMA_ALLOC > priv->dma_dev = gntdev_miscdev.this_device; > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote: >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> >> The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because >> ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to >> non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence >> the check is redundant and can be removed. > > Which version did you patch against? In current master the above > statement is not true. against today's linux-next Colin > > > Juergen > >> >> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code") >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >> --- >> drivers/xen/gntdev.c | 5 ----- >> 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c >> index 10cc5e9e612a..07d80b176118 100644 >> --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c >> +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c >> @@ -524,11 +524,6 @@ static int gntdev_open(struct inode *inode, >> struct file *flip) >> } >> #endif >> - if (ret) { >> - kfree(priv); >> - return ret; >> - } >> - >> flip->private_data = priv; >> #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_GRANT_DMA_ALLOC >> priv->dma_dev = gntdev_miscdev.this_device; >> > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 11.11.19 13:31, Colin Ian King wrote: > On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote: >> On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote: >>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>> >>> The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because >>> ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to >>> non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence >>> the check is redundant and can be removed. >> >> Which version did you patch against? In current master the above >> statement is not true. > > against today's linux-next Ah, okay, this is likely the result of the recent mm-notifier patch series. I'll put this patch on hold until the recent patches have hit master. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
On 11/11/2019 13:17, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 11.11.19 13:31, Colin Ian King wrote: >> On 11/11/2019 12:25, Jürgen Groß wrote: >>> On 11.11.19 13:20, Colin King wrote: >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> >>>> >>>> The non-zero check on ret is always going to be false because >>>> ret was initialized as zero and the only place it is set to >>>> non-zero contains a return path before the non-zero check. Hence >>>> the check is redundant and can be removed. >>> >>> Which version did you patch against? In current master the above >>> statement is not true. >> >> against today's linux-next > > Ah, okay, this is likely the result of the recent mm-notifier patch > series. I'll put this patch on hold until the recent patches have > hit master. Cool, thanks! > > > Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.