On 10/31/2025 2:03 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:24:31 +0100
A pointer was assigned to a variable. The same pointer was used for
the destination parameter of a memcpy() call.
This function is documented in the way that the same value is returned.
Thus convert two separate statements into a direct variable assignment for
the return value from a memory copy action.
The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c
index c0e22921ace1..745d02066308 100644
--- a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c
+++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c
@@ -464,9 +464,7 @@ static int hv_crash_setup_trampdata(u64 trampoline_va)
return -1;
}
- dest = (void *)trampoline_va;
- memcpy(dest, &hv_crash_asm32, size);
-
+ dest = memcpy((void *)trampoline_va, &hv_crash_asm32, size);
dest += size;
dest = (void *)round_up((ulong)dest, 16);
tramp = (struct hv_crash_tramp_data *)dest;
I tried running spatch Coccinelle checks on this file, but could not get
it to flag this improvement. Do you mind sharing more details on the
issue reproduction please.
I am OK with this change, though it may cost code readability a little
bit. But if this is a result of some known standard rule, added as part
of these Coccinelle rules, we should be good.
Regards,
Naman
