On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:17:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > 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). Yeah, that's a hack :) > 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). Great, that's the correct thing to do here, thanks. greg k-h
