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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:23:09 +0300 (EEST)
From:   =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     "D. Starke" <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
cc:     linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] tty: n_gsm: fix unneeded initialization of ret in
 gsm_dlci_config
In-Reply-To: <20230405054730.3850-4-daniel.starke@siemens.com>
Message-ID: <2d67db22-3a5d-1ed7-cfa7-d549aa1475b@linux.intel.com>
References: <20230405054730.3850-1-daniel.starke@siemens.com> <20230405054730.3850-4-daniel.starke@siemens.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, D. Starke wrote:

> From: Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
> 
> The variable 'ret' is not used before assignment from gsm_activate_mux().
> Still it gets initialized to zero at declaration.
> 
> Fix this as remarked in the link below by removing the initialization.
> 
> Fixes: edd5f60c3400 ("tty: n_gsm: fix mux activation issues in gsm_config()")

This doesn't "fix" any bug so Fixes tag seems inappropriate unless does it 
fix a compiler warning (in which case you should quote the warning in 
this changelog and state you're fixing this warning from compiler)?

> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/b42bc4d1-cc9d-d115-c981-aaa053bdc59f@kernel.org/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> index eb21ca583642..d42b92cbae88 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> @@ -3276,7 +3276,7 @@ static void gsm_copy_config_values(struct gsm_mux *gsm,
>  
>  static int gsm_config(struct gsm_mux *gsm, struct gsm_config *c)
>  {
> -	int ret = 0;
> +	int ret;

While at it, I'd move the declaration into the block where it's used so 
the scope where the variable is used is easier to see on the first glance.

>  	int need_close = 0;
>  	int need_restart = 0;
>  
> 


-- 
 i.