On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:01:05AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:07:23AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: > > The variable tmp is being assigned a value but it isn't being > > read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so tmp can be > > removed. > > > > I assume this intends to refer to s/tmp/ret/ ... > > > Cleans up clang scan build warning: > > warning: Although the value stored to 'ret' is used in the enclosing > > expression, the value is never actually read from 'ret' > > [deadcode.DeadStores] > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c | 4 +--- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c b/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c > > index 95f46cb3b5bd..827316a27431 100644 > > --- a/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c > > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/rebalance.c > > @@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ static int bch2_rebalance_thread(void *arg) > > struct bch_fs *c = arg; > > struct bch_fs_rebalance *r = &c->rebalance; > > struct moving_context ctxt; > > - int ret; > > > > set_freezable(); > > > > @@ -393,8 +392,7 @@ static int bch2_rebalance_thread(void *arg) > > writepoint_ptr(&c->rebalance_write_point), > > true); > > > > - while (!kthread_should_stop() && > > - !(ret = do_rebalance(&ctxt))) > > + while (!kthread_should_stop() && !do_rebalance(&ctxt)) > > Part of me wonders if this was intended to return ret, as that appears > to bubble back through kthread_stop(). That said, we don't check for > error there either (i.e. bch2_rebalance_stop()), so this seems > reasonable enough to me to address the warning: yeah, the only reason to return errors here is to log them, and they've already been logged at this point. Thanks, applying this
