Am Dienstag, den 20.11.2018, 21:07 +0100 schrieb Oleksij Rempel: > The code is correct but it takes more seconds for me to understand. > And static code analyzer do not understand it at all. > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra30.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra30.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra30.c > index d9b49c57d..ffb04eebb 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra30.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-tegra30.c > @@ -658,8 +658,8 @@ static int pinctrl_tegra30_set_drvstate(struct pinctrl_tegra30 *ctrl, > > break; > > } > > } > > - /* if no matching drivegroup is found */ > > - if (i == ctrl->drvdata->num_drvgrps) > + > > + if (!group) > > return 0; Huh? This is a pretty standard idiom in C codebases to check if we broke out of a loop early. Actually this change breaks the code, as this check is inside of an outer loop that doesn't reinitialize the group variable. So while the code as-is correctly checks if a group was found in the current iteration of the outer loop, after this patch it also matches a group that was found on a previous iteration of the outer loop. This is a prime example where static checker warnings can prompt wrong fixes. Frankly codacy should smart up to correctly analyze the controlflow interdependency. Sascha, please drop this patch. Regards, Lucas _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
