On 07/09/2021 12:11, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 11:59:13AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The variable dev_ctl is being initialized with a value that is never
>> read, it is being updated later on. The assignment is redundant and
>> can be removed.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
>
> I'll never get a public reference to what those things mean, will I?
>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/edac/edac_device.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
>> index 8c4d947fb848..a337f7afc3b9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_device.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,6 @@ struct edac_device_ctl_info *edac_device_alloc_ctl_info(
>> * provide if we could simply hardcode everything into a single struct.
>> */
>> p = NULL;
>> - dev_ctl = edac_align_ptr(&p, sizeof(*dev_ctl), 1);
>
> Are you absolutely sure this function doesn't have any side-effects,
> say, to &p and removing the call would break the pointer offsets for the
> one-shot allocation?
Oops. brown-paper-bag on head. It does alter p. NACK.
>
