On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:05:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:38:27PM +0000, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Return the value usb_control_msg() directly instead of storing > > it in another redundant variable. > > > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > - rv = usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev, > > - usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0), > > - FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST, > > - FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE, > > - value, index, > > - NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT); > > - return rv; > > + return usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev, > > + usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0), > > + FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST, > > + FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE, > > + value, index, > > + NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT); > > } > > That's really not the correct use of the return value of > usb_control_msg(). Can you fix this up to properly handle the return > value, or better yet, use the usb_control_msg_send() call? It is actually correct since the buffer length is zero here (i.e. it returns a negative errno or 0). But I'm also ignoring patches from this email address as it is used by multiple users, and of which none so far has replied to feedback (as if it's all automated). Johan
