On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:30:04 +0000 Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 13/12/17 20:24, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:17:43 +0000 > > Colin King <colin.k...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> > >> > >> The check of len being zero is redundant as it has already been > >> sanity checked for this value at the start of the function. Hence > >> it is impossible for this test to be true and so the redundant > >> code can be removed. > > > > Nope, it's not the same test, the initial test is > > > > if (len && !buf) > > Ah, the current tip from linux-next has: > > 1912 if (!len || !buf) > 1913 return -EINVAL; > > ..so I guess that's why it got picked up by static analysis. Hm, that's weird, that's not what I see [1] in linux-next. [1]https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c#n1488 > > > > > not > > > > if (len) > > > > So this test is not redundant. > > > >> > >> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1462748 ("Logically dead code") > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 4 ---- > >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > >> index afd5e18db81c..9daaa23db943 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > >> @@ -1507,10 +1507,6 @@ static int nand_read_param_page_op(struct nand_chip > >> *chip, u8 page, void *buf, > >> }; > >> struct nand_operation op = NAND_OPERATION(instrs); > >> > >> - /* Drop the DATA_IN instruction if len is set to 0. */ > >> - if (!len) > >> - op.ninstrs--; > >> - > >> return nand_exec_op(chip, &op); > >> } > >> > > >
