lib/inflate.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Hello, This patch removes a dead code in lib/inflate.c; it follows from a discussion in Xen. The dead code is tracked by Coverity-ID 1055253 in Xen, was triggered by a file taken unmodified from Linux. Thank you, Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/ Ariel Otilibili (1): lib: Remove dead code lib/inflate.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) -- 2.47.1
Hello, This patch removes a dead code in lib/inflate.c; it follows from a discussion in Xen. The dead code is tracked by Coverity-ID 1055253 in Xen, was triggered by a file taken unmodified from Linux. Thank you, Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/ -- v2: * Cc stable Ariel Otilibili (1): lib: Remove dead code lib/inflate.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) -- 2.47.1
This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
--
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@vates.tech>
Cc: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Cc: =?utf-8?q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
---
lib/inflate.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/inflate.c b/lib/inflate.c
index fbaf03c1748d..eab886baa1b4 100644
--- a/lib/inflate.c
+++ b/lib/inflate.c
@@ -1257,8 +1257,6 @@ static int INIT gunzip(void)
/* Decompress */
if ((res = inflate())) {
switch (res) {
- case 0:
- break;
case 1:
error("invalid compressed format (err=1)");
break;
--
2.47.1On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:45:01PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
>
> The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
> --
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Why is "removing dead code" a stable kernel thing?
confused,
greg k-h
On Friday, December 20, 2024 08:09 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:45:01PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> > This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
> >
> > The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
> > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
> > --
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>
> Why is "removing dead code" a stable kernel thing?
Hello Greg,
It is what I understood from the process:
"Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org on all stable patch candidates." [1]
Does my understanding make sense?
Regards,
Ariel
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
>
> confused,
>
> greg k-h
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:44:31AM +0100, Ariel Otilibili-Anieli wrote:
> On Friday, December 20, 2024 08:09 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:45:01PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> > > This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
> > >
> > > The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
> > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
> > > --
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >
> > Why is "removing dead code" a stable kernel thing?
>
> Hello Greg,
>
> It is what I understood from the process:
>
> "Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org on all stable patch candidates." [1]
>
> Does my understanding make sense?
I'm confused, what are you expecting to happen here? Why is this even
marked as a "fix"?
> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for the stable kernel rules.
Again, you have a "cc: stable@..." in your patch, why?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Friday, December 20, 2024 09:53 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:44:31AM +0100, Ariel Otilibili-Anieli wrote:
> > On Friday, December 20, 2024 08:09 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:45:01PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> > > > This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
> > > >
> > > > The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
> > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
> > > > --
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > >
> > > Why is "removing dead code" a stable kernel thing?
> >
> > Hello Greg,
> >
> > It is what I understood from the process:
> >
> > "Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org on all stable patch candidates." [1]
> >
> > Does my understanding make sense?
>
> I'm confused, what are you expecting to happen here? Why is this even
> marked as a "fix"?
>
> > [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
>
> Please read:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
I am, Greg; thanks for the heads up.
>
> for the stable kernel rules.
>
> Again, you have a "cc: stable@..." in your patch, why?
Removed stable from the thread.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
On Friday, December 20, 2024 10:01 CET, "Ariel Otilibili-Anieli" <Ariel.Otilibili-Anieli@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> On Friday, December 20, 2024 09:53 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 09:44:31AM +0100, Ariel Otilibili-Anieli wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 20, 2024 08:09 CET, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:45:01PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili wrote:
> > > > > This is a follow up from a discussion in Xen:
> > > > >
> > > > > The if-statement tests `res` is non-zero; meaning the case zero is never reached.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7587b503-b2ca-4476-8dc9-e9683d4ca5f0@suse.com/
> > > > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > > > Suggested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ariel Otilibili <ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > >
> > > > Why is "removing dead code" a stable kernel thing?
> > >
> > > Hello Greg,
> > >
> > > It is what I understood from the process:
> > >
> > > "Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org on all stable patch candidates." [1]
> > >
> > > Does my understanding make sense?
> >
> > I'm confused, what are you expecting to happen here? Why is this even
> > marked as a "fix"?
My understanding was that, for one-liners, the reference commit should be included; and CC stable.
> >
> > > [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
> >
> > Please read:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>
> I am, Greg; thanks for the heads up.
Now I got the procedure; thank you.
> >
> > for the stable kernel rules.
> >
> > Again, you have a "cc: stable@..." in your patch, why?
>
> Removed stable from the thread.
Hello again, Greg;
I should have said it upfront, for us to understand one another.
I have just checked, this thread is about v2 of the patch (with stable in CC); and v1 (without) was already accepted by Andrew Morton [1].
If anything else I need to do, let me know.
Have a good day,
Ariel
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/lib-remove-dead-code.patch
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.