On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 03:44:01PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 01:30:46PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:15:16 +0200 > > > > A return was performed with the same error code after two condition checks. > > Thus use a single statement instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c | 5 +---- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c b/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c > > index 873a5631937a..0d02743e7a87 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c > > @@ -82,10 +82,7 @@ static int vtpm_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count) > > u32 ordinal; > > unsigned long duration; > > > > - if (offset > PAGE_SIZE) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > - if (offset + count > PAGE_SIZE) > > + if (offset > PAGE_SIZE || offset + count > PAGE_SIZE) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > /* Wait for completion of any existing command or cancellation */ > > -- > > 2.14.2 > > > > This is fine. > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > /Jarkko Anyway I NAK it because it is really a change of insignificant value. Just adds cruft to the kernel release. I would be fine if someone did this as part of something significant. /Jarkko
