On 13/02/17 10:45, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Colin King writes:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
>> retval equal to -EPIPE at that point. Replace the existing
>> conditional
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Colin King writes:
> > From: Colin Ian King
> >
> > The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
> > retval equal to -EPIPE at that point. Replace the existing
> >
Hi,
Colin King writes:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
> retval equal to -EPIPE at that point. Replace the existing
> conditional with just return retval.
>
> Detected with
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 06:35:18PM +, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
> retval equal to -EPIPE at that point. Replace the existing
> conditional with just return retval.
>
> Detected with
From: Colin Ian King
The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
retval equal to -EPIPE at that point. Replace the existing
conditional with just return retval.
Detected with CoverityScan, CID#114349 ("Logically dead code")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian