[PATCH] arch/s390/kernel: remove unneeded rc variable

cgel.zte@gmail.com posted 1 patch 4 years, 5 months ago
arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
[PATCH] arch/s390/kernel: remove unneeded rc variable
Posted by cgel.zte@gmail.com 4 years, 5 months ago
From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>

Return value from user_regset_copyin() directly instead
of taking this in another redundant variable.

Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <cgel.zte@gmail.com>
---
 arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
index 0ea3d02b378d..2ac936ae7b2b 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -1048,16 +1048,13 @@ static int s390_vxrs_high_set(struct task_struct *target,
 			      unsigned int pos, unsigned int count,
 			      const void *kbuf, const void __user *ubuf)
 {
-	int rc;
-
 	if (!MACHINE_HAS_VX)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	if (target == current)
 		save_fpu_regs();
 
-	rc = user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
+	return user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
 				target->thread.fpu.vxrs + __NUM_VXRS_LOW, 0, -1);
-	return rc;
 }
 
 static int s390_system_call_get(struct task_struct *target,
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] arch/s390/kernel: remove unneeded rc variable
Posted by Heiko Carstens 4 years, 5 months ago
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:51:15AM +0000, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
> 
> Return value from user_regset_copyin() directly instead
> of taking this in another redundant variable.
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <cgel.zte@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
...
> -	int rc;
> -
>  	if (!MACHINE_HAS_VX)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	if (target == current)
>  		save_fpu_regs();
>  
> -	rc = user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
> +	return user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
>  				target->thread.fpu.vxrs + __NUM_VXRS_LOW, 0, -1);
> -	return rc;

This "breaks" indentation. Could you guys please stop sending such
semi-automated generated questionable patches? I really don't see any
benefit besides code churn, and the possibility of introducing bugs.

Thanks!