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;
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 16:17:26 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     cgel.zte@gmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>,
        Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] USB: serial: ftdi_sio: remove the unneeded
 result variable
Message-ID: <Yx8/dtzrkRE4iFea@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20220912133826.18517-1-xu.panda@zte.com.cn>
 <Yx88s4TwEEt6luPY@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yx88s4TwEEt6luPY@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:05:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:38:27PM +0000, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>
> > 
> > Return the value usb_control_msg() directly instead of storing
> > it in another redundant variable.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@zte.com.cn>

> > -       rv = usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > -                           usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > -                           value, index,
> > -                           NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> > -       return rv;
> > +       return usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > +                              usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > +                              value, index,
> > +                              NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> >  }
> 
> That's really not the correct use of the return value of
> usb_control_msg().  Can you fix this up to properly handle the return
> value, or better yet, use the usb_control_msg_send() call?

It is actually correct since the buffer length is zero here (i.e. it
returns a negative errno or 0).

But I'm also ignoring patches from this email address as it is used by
multiple users, and of which none so far has replied to feedback (as if
it's all automated).

Johan