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-develOn 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 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.