| Message ID | 20230427-scan-build-v1-4-efa05d65e2da@codewreck.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix scan-build warnings | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply |
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 08:23:37PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote: > Fix the following scan-build warning: > net/9p/trans_virtio.c:504:3: warning: Value stored to 'in' is never read [deadcode.DeadStores] > in += pack_sg_list_p(chan->sg, out + in, VIRTQUEUE_NUM, > ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I'm honestly not 100% sure about this one; I'm tempted to think we > could (should?) just check the return value of pack_sg_list_p to skip > the in_sgs++ and setting sgs[] if it didn't process anything, but I'm > not sure it should ever happen so this is probably fine as is. > > Just removing the assignment at least makes it clear the return value > isn't used, so it's an improvement in terms of readability. > > Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
diff --git a/net/9p/trans_virtio.c b/net/9p/trans_virtio.c index f3f678289423..e305071eb7b8 100644 --- a/net/9p/trans_virtio.c +++ b/net/9p/trans_virtio.c @@ -501,8 +501,8 @@ p9_virtio_zc_request(struct p9_client *client, struct p9_req_t *req, if (in_pages) { sgs[out_sgs + in_sgs++] = chan->sg + out + in; - in += pack_sg_list_p(chan->sg, out + in, VIRTQUEUE_NUM, - in_pages, in_nr_pages, offs, inlen); + pack_sg_list_p(chan->sg, out + in, VIRTQUEUE_NUM, + in_pages, in_nr_pages, offs, inlen); } BUG_ON(out_sgs + in_sgs > ARRAY_SIZE(sgs));
Fix the following scan-build warning: net/9p/trans_virtio.c:504:3: warning: Value stored to 'in' is never read [deadcode.DeadStores] in += pack_sg_list_p(chan->sg, out + in, VIRTQUEUE_NUM, ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm honestly not 100% sure about this one; I'm tempted to think we could (should?) just check the return value of pack_sg_list_p to skip the in_sgs++ and setting sgs[] if it didn't process anything, but I'm not sure it should ever happen so this is probably fine as is. Just removing the assignment at least makes it clear the return value isn't used, so it's an improvement in terms of readability. Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> --- net/9p/trans_virtio.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)