Hi Guenter,
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 12:41 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:20:13PM +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Guenter et al.,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 3:36 PM kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 475 static bool jc42_readable_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg)
> > > 476 {
> > > > 477 return (reg >= JC42_REG_CAP && reg <= JC42_REG_DEVICEID) ||
> > > 478 reg == JC42_REG_SMBUS;
> > The bot is right: we can omit "reg >= JC42_REG_CAP" as it's already
> > covered by the fact that:
> > - the reg variable is unsigned, which means the lower limit is zero
> > - reg <= JC42_REG_DEVICEID covers the upper limit
> >
> > Before I send a patch I'd like to hear if removal of "reg >=
> > JC42_REG_CAP" makes sense to other people.
> >
>
> The bot keeps complaining about it. Yes, it is technically unnecessary,
> but I left it in on purpose to indicate that JC42_REG_CAP is the first
> register and that it wasn't forgotten. Any modern C compiler notices
> that the check is unnecessary and drops it, so there is no runtime penalty.
Thanks for your feedback. Since I had to double check the bot's
complaint I'll just keep this as-is (and not send any patch for this
at all).
> This is one of those situations where I'd like to have a means to tell
> the checker to please stop complaining.
I see, in some cases this may be an actual logic error (for example:
accidentally using an unsigned data type instead of a signed one).
Best regards,
Martin
