2019-09-25 23:49:00

by Larry Finger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: remove dead code in do-while conditional step

On 9/23/19 2:48 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
> The local variable 'bcmd_down' is always set to true almost immediately
> before the do-while's condition is checked. As a result, !bcmd_down
> evaluates to false which short circuits the logical AND operator meaning
> that the second operand is never reached and is therefore dead code.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
>
> Signed-off-by: Connor Kuehl <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
> index 47352f210c0b..a4b317937b23 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
> @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ static u8 _is_fw_read_cmd_down(struct adapter *adapt, u8 msgbox_num)
> static s32 FillH2CCmd_88E(struct adapter *adapt, u8 ElementID, u32 CmdLen, u8 *pCmdBuffer)
> {
> u8 bcmd_down = false;
> - s32 retry_cnts = 100;
> u8 h2c_box_num;
> u32 msgbox_addr;
> u32 msgbox_ex_addr;
> @@ -103,7 +102,7 @@ static s32 FillH2CCmd_88E(struct adapter *adapt, u8 ElementID, u32 CmdLen, u8 *p
> adapt->HalData->LastHMEBoxNum =
> (h2c_box_num+1) % RTL88E_MAX_H2C_BOX_NUMS;
>
> - } while ((!bcmd_down) && (retry_cnts--));
> + } while (!bcmd_down);
>
> ret = _SUCCESS;

This patch is correct; however, the do..while loop will always be executed once,
thus you could remove the loop and the loop variable bcmd_down.

@greg: If you would prefer a two-step process, then this one is OK.

Larry


2019-09-26 00:42:11

by Dan Carpenter

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: remove dead code in do-while conditional step

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> This patch is correct; however, the do..while loop will always be executed

s/correct/harmless/.

> once, thus you could remove the loop and the loop variable bcmd_down.
>
> @greg: If you would prefer a two-step process, then this one is OK.

It has to be done in one step.

regards,
dan carpenter

2019-09-26 04:57:57

by Connor Kuehl

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8188eu: remove dead code in do-while conditional step

On 9/23/19 1:38 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 9/23/19 2:48 PM, Connor Kuehl wrote:
>> The local variable 'bcmd_down' is always set to true almost immediately
>> before the do-while's condition is checked. As a result, !bcmd_down
>> evaluates to false which short circuits the logical AND operator meaning
>> that the second operand is never reached and is therefore dead code.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Logically dead code")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Connor Kuehl <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c | 3 +--
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
>> b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
>> index 47352f210c0b..a4b317937b23 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/hal/rtl8188e_cmd.c
>> @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ static u8 _is_fw_read_cmd_down(struct adapter
>> *adapt, u8 msgbox_num)
>>   static s32 FillH2CCmd_88E(struct adapter *adapt, u8 ElementID, u32
>> CmdLen, u8 *pCmdBuffer)
>>   {
>>       u8 bcmd_down = false;
>> -    s32 retry_cnts = 100;
>>       u8 h2c_box_num;
>>       u32 msgbox_addr;
>>       u32 msgbox_ex_addr;
>> @@ -103,7 +102,7 @@ static s32 FillH2CCmd_88E(struct adapter *adapt,
>> u8 ElementID, u32 CmdLen, u8 *p
>>           adapt->HalData->LastHMEBoxNum =
>>               (h2c_box_num+1) % RTL88E_MAX_H2C_BOX_NUMS;
>> -    } while ((!bcmd_down) && (retry_cnts--));
>> +    } while (!bcmd_down);
>>       ret = _SUCCESS;
>
> This patch is correct; however, the do..while loop will always be
> executed once, thus you could remove the loop and the loop variable
> bcmd_down.

Ah, yes! That makes sense, good catch.

>
> @greg: If you would prefer a two-step process, then this one is OK.

I'll do whichever is preferred. I'm happy to NACK this and send a v2
with the dead code and loop removed or I can send a separate patch based
on this one to remove the loop.

Thank you,

Connor

>
> Larry
>