On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:05 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:12:10PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The variable err is being assigned a value that is never read, the
> > assignment is redundant and can be removed. Also remove some empty
> > lines.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> > index 9e4a6bb3acd1..22f220859b46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/habanalabs/gaudi/gaudi.c
> > @@ -7379,9 +7379,6 @@ static int gaudi_hbm_read_interrupts(struct hl_device *hdev, int device,
> > device, ch, hbm_ecc_data->first_addr, type,
> > hbm_ecc_data->sec_cont_cnt, hbm_ecc_data->sec_cnt,
> > hbm_ecc_data->dec_cnt);
> > -
> > - err = 1;
> > -
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Not related to your patch (which seems fine), but I always feel like
> there should be a rule that function which return a mix of negative
> error codes and either zero or one on success should have to have
> documentation explaining why.
>
> It's impossible to tell from the context here and neither of the callers
> check the return. :P
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
I agree and I will change the function to return only 0 on success, or
standard error value on error.
Anyway, this patch is:
Reviewed-by: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@xxxxxxxxxx>
