On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:39:16 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 03/06/2019 18:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:02:47 +0100, Colin King wrote:
> >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The variable err is assigned with the value -EINVAL that is never
> >> read and it is re-assigned a new value later on. The assignment is
> >> redundant and can be removed.
> >>
> >> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/bpf/devmap.c | 2 +-
> >> kernel/bpf/xskmap.c | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> index 5ae7cce5ef16..a76cc6412fc4 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static u64 dev_map_bitmap_size(const union bpf_attr *attr)
> >> static struct bpf_map *dev_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
> >> {
> >> struct bpf_dtab *dtab;
> >> - int err = -EINVAL;
> >> + int err;
> >> u64 cost;
> >
> > Perhaps keep the variables ordered longest to shortest?
>
> Is that a required coding standard?
For networking code, yes. Just look around the files you're changing
and see for yourself.
> >> if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> >> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/xskmap.c b/kernel/bpf/xskmap.c
> >> index 22066c28ba61..26859c6c9491 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/bpf/xskmap.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/bpf/xskmap.c
> >> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ struct xsk_map {
> >>
> >> static struct bpf_map *xsk_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
> >> {
> >> - int cpu, err = -EINVAL;
> >> + int cpu, err;
> >> struct xsk_map *m;
> >> u64 cost;
> >
> > And here.
