On 1/16/24 13:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
The variable ret is being assigned a value but it isn't being
read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so ret can be
removed.
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>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
@@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
{
u64 runm = 0;
- int ret, i;
+ int i;
- if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
+ if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
return runm;
Could we return a literal zero here? Otherwise, I'm surprised this
doesn't trigger a static checker warning.
Why do you think so? Conditionally, runm is used later on as well. I don't
think the checker should complain about keeping the value single source.
If you agree, want to offer your RB?
- Danilo
regards,
dan carpenter
