Coccinelle suggests the following patch. But the code is curious. Is the function expected to always return a failure value? thanks, julia On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, kbuild test robot wrote: > TO: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@xxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: kbuild-all@xxxxxx > CC: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > CC: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > drivers/usb/gadget/function/uvc_configfs.c:866:5-8: Unneeded variable: "ret". Return "- EINVAL" on line 891 > > > Remove unneeded variable used to store return value. > > Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/returnvar.cocci > > CC: Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks! > > uvc_configfs.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/uvc_configfs.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/uvc_configfs.c > @@ -863,7 +863,6 @@ static int uvcg_streaming_header_drop_li > struct uvcg_streaming_header *src_hdr; > struct uvcg_format *target_fmt = NULL; > struct uvcg_format_ptr *format_ptr, *tmp; > - int ret = -EINVAL; > > src_hdr = to_uvcg_streaming_header(src); > mutex_lock(su_mutex); /* for navigating configfs hierarchy */ > @@ -888,7 +887,7 @@ static int uvcg_streaming_header_drop_li > out: > mutex_unlock(&opts->lock); > mutex_unlock(su_mutex); > - return ret; > + return -EINVAL; > > } > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
