On 15/11/2023 09.00, zhujun2 wrote:
These variables are never referenced in the code, just remove them

Signed-off-by: zhujun2 <zhuj...@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
  tests/qtest/test-filter-mirror.c     | 2 +-
  tests/qtest/test-filter-redirector.c | 4 ++--
  tests/qtest/virtio-net-test.c        | 2 +-
  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/qtest/test-filter-mirror.c b/tests/qtest/test-filter-mirror.c
index adeada3eb8..7aa81daa93 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/test-filter-mirror.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/test-filter-mirror.c
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void test_mirror(void)
g_assert_cmpint(len, ==, sizeof(send_buf));
      recv_buf = g_malloc(len);
-    ret = recv(recv_sock[0], recv_buf, len, 0);
+    recv(recv_sock[0], recv_buf, len, 0);
      g_assert_cmpstr(recv_buf, ==, send_buf);
g_free(recv_buf);
diff --git a/tests/qtest/test-filter-redirector.c 
b/tests/qtest/test-filter-redirector.c
index e72e3b7873..e4dfeff2e0 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/test-filter-redirector.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/test-filter-redirector.c
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static void test_redirector_tx(void)
g_assert_cmpint(len, ==, sizeof(send_buf));
      recv_buf = g_malloc(len);
-    ret = recv(recv_sock, recv_buf, len, 0);
+    recv(recv_sock, recv_buf, len, 0);
      g_assert_cmpstr(recv_buf, ==, send_buf);
g_free(recv_buf);
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ static void test_redirector_rx(void)
g_assert_cmpint(len, ==, sizeof(send_buf));
      recv_buf = g_malloc(len);
-    ret = recv(backend_sock[0], recv_buf, len, 0);
+    recv(backend_sock[0], recv_buf, len, 0);
      g_assert_cmpstr(recv_buf, ==, send_buf);
close(send_sock);
diff --git a/tests/qtest/virtio-net-test.c b/tests/qtest/virtio-net-test.c
index fab5dd8b05..26df5bbabe 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/virtio-net-test.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/virtio-net-test.c
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static void tx_test(QVirtioDevice *dev,
      g_assert_cmpint(ret, ==, sizeof(len));
      len = ntohl(len);
- ret = recv(socket, buffer, len, 0);
+    recv(socket, buffer, len, 0);
      g_assert_cmpstr(buffer, ==, "TEST");
  }

Wouldn't it be better to check the ret value for success?

 Thomas



Reply via email to