tcf_qevent_parse_block_index() has been checked the value of block_index.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to check the value of block_index in
tcf_qevent_init().

Signed-off-by: Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@huawei.com>
---
 net/sched/cls_api.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
index 790d6809be81..72f5fd6e8e2d 100644
--- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
@@ -3639,9 +3639,6 @@ int tcf_qevent_init(struct tcf_qevent *qe, struct Qdisc *sch,
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	if (!block_index)
-		return 0;
-
 	qe->info.binder_type = binder_type;
 	qe->info.chain_head_change = tcf_chain_head_change_dflt;
 	qe->info.chain_head_change_priv = &qe->filter_chain;
-- 
2.17.1

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:17:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> tcf_qevent_parse_block_index() has been checked the value of block_index.

Please rephrase this:

  tcf_qevent_parse_block_index() never returns a zero block_index.

Took me a while to figure out what you mean.

> Therefore, it is unnecessary to check the value of block_index in
> tcf_qevent_init().

On 2022/9/1 3:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:17:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
>> tcf_qevent_parse_block_index() has been checked the value of block_index.
> 
> Please rephrase this:
> 
>    tcf_qevent_parse_block_index() never returns a zero block_index.
> 
> Took me a while to figure out what you mean.
> 
>> Therefore, it is unnecessary to check the value of block_index in
>> tcf_qevent_init().

Hi Jakub:
	Thank you for your reply. I will send v2.

Zhengchao Shao