2022-01-19 22:05:01

by CGEL

Subject: [PATCH] arch/s390/kernel: remove unneeded rc variable

From: Minghao Chi <[email protected]>

Return value from user_regset_copyin() directly instead
of taking this in another redundant variable.

Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <[email protected]>
---
arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
index 0ea3d02b378d..2ac936ae7b2b 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -1048,16 +1048,13 @@ static int s390_vxrs_high_set(struct task_struct *target,
unsigned int pos, unsigned int count,
const void *kbuf, const void __user *ubuf)
{
- int rc;
-
if (!MACHINE_HAS_VX)
return -ENODEV;
if (target == current)
save_fpu_regs();

- rc = user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
+ return user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
target->thread.fpu.vxrs + __NUM_VXRS_LOW, 0, -1);
- return rc;
}

static int s390_system_call_get(struct task_struct *target,
--
2.25.1

2022-01-20 00:25:08

by Heiko Carstens

Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/s390/kernel: remove unneeded rc variable

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:51:15AM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Minghao Chi <[email protected]>
>
> Return value from user_regset_copyin() directly instead
> of taking this in another redundant variable.
>
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
...
> - int rc;
> -
> if (!MACHINE_HAS_VX)
> return -ENODEV;
> if (target == current)
> save_fpu_regs();
>
> - rc = user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
> + return user_regset_copyin(&pos, &count, &kbuf, &ubuf,
> target->thread.fpu.vxrs + __NUM_VXRS_LOW, 0, -1);
> - return rc;

This "breaks" indentation. Could you guys please stop sending such
semi-automated generated questionable patches? I really don't see any
benefit besides code churn, and the possibility of introducing bugs.

Thanks!