[PATCH linux-next] xfrm: Remove redundant fields

From: luo penghao <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-18 09:18:07

From: penghao luo <redacted>

the variable err is not necessary in such places. It should be revmoved
for the simplicity of the code.

The clang_analyzer complains as follows:

net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c:530: warning:

Although the value stored to 'err' is used in the enclosing expression,
the value is never actually read from 'err'.

Reported-by: Zeal Robot <redacted>
Signed-off-by: penghao luo <redacted>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
index 3df0861..ff34667 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c

@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
 				goto drop;
 			}
 
-			if ((err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
+			if ((xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
 				XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR);
 				goto drop;
 			}

@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
 	}
 
 	seq = 0;
-	if (!spi && (err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
+	if (!spi && (xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
 		secpath_reset(skb);
 		XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR);
 		goto drop;

-- 
2.15.2

Re: [PATCH linux-next] xfrm: Remove redundant fields

From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-10-20 09:07:36

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 09:17:58AM +0000, luo penghao wrote:

quoted hunk

From: penghao luo <redacted>

the variable err is not necessary in such places. It should be revmoved
for the simplicity of the code.

The clang_analyzer complains as follows:

net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c:530: warning:

Although the value stored to 'err' is used in the enclosing expression,
the value is never actually read from 'err'.

Reported-by: Zeal Robot <redacted>
Signed-off-by: penghao luo <redacted>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
index 3df0861..ff34667 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c

@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
 				goto drop;
 			}
 
-			if ((err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
+			if ((xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {

I agree that assigning the value to err is not needed.
But you may also wish to consider:

1. Dropping the () around the call to xfrm_parse_spi, which seem out of
   place now.
2. Dropping the explicit check against zero

Which would leave you with:

			if (xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) {

quoted hunk

 				XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR);
 				goto drop;
 			}

@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
 	}
 
 	seq = 0;
-	if (!spi && (err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
+	if (!spi && (xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
 		secpath_reset(skb);
 		XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR);
 		goto drop;

-- 
2.15.2

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help