Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] Re: mm/madvise.c:1438:6: warning: Redundant
 assignment of 'ret' to itself. [selfAssignment]
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc:     Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
References: <202206180617.UzO7ymnD-lkp@intel.com>
 <5ec7b561-551b-f02a-9b7b-65d05ccdabbc@quicinc.com>
 <YrCgcEGKxjN7mNu9@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2206201253480.2243@hadrien>
 <YrDHFJkwcn5Ga3yy@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   "Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Message-ID: <0a9d1c96-3a8d-70ee-1490-f65c1b4a6f00@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:37:36 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/78.0 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YrDHFJkwcn5Ga3yy@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/21/2022 3:14 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 20-06-22 12:54:56, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat 18-06-22 11:25:43, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
>>>> Hello Andrew,
>>>>
[...]
>>>>> cppcheck warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>>>>>>> mm/madvise.c:1438:6: warning: Redundant assignment of 'ret' to itself. [selfAssignment]
>>>>>      ret = (total_len - iov_iter_count(&iter)) ? : ret;
>>>>
>>>> Other way to avoid this warning is by creating another local variable
>>>> that holds the total bytes processed. Having another local variable to
>>>> get rid off some compilation warning doesn't seem proper to me. So,
>>>> leaving this warning unless you ask me to fix this.
>>>
>>> Is this a new warning? I do not see it supported by my gcc 10.x. Do we
>>
>> cppcheck is a static analysis tool.  It looks like it doesn't have a
>> proper understanding of ?:
> 
> Ohh, thanks for the clarification! I thought this was a gcc feature.
> Then I would suggest to report a bug report against the static checker
> rather than making any changes to the kernel to workaround it.
> 

Hi all,

Sorry for the inconvenience, we have added the warning to ignore list
to avoid reporting it again.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen