Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:14:43 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Li zeming <zeming@nfschina.com>
Cc:     gor@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stackleak: =?us-ascii?Q?Remove?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?_unnecessary_'0'?= values from ret
Message-ID: <ZS5ek5RrW3XaBph9@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20231017060824.10434-1-zeming@nfschina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231017060824.10434-1-zeming@nfschina.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 02:08:24PM +0800, Li zeming wrote:
> ret is assigned first, so it does not need to initialize the assignment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li zeming <zeming@nfschina.com>

Does this actually need to change? It's not harmful, and deleting the
assignment doesn't save any lines of code.

That said, I don't have strong feelings either way, and Kees is the
de-facto-yet-undocumented maintainer for this code, so I will leave it to him
to decide whether to apply.

Mark.

> ---
>  kernel/stackleak.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c
> index 34c9d81eea940..3faf863593846 100644
> --- a/kernel/stackleak.c
> +++ b/kernel/stackleak.c
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(stack_erasing_bypass);
>  static int stack_erasing_sysctl(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>  			void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> -	int ret = 0;
> +	int ret;
>  	int state = !static_branch_unlikely(&stack_erasing_bypass);
>  	int prev_state = state;
>  
> -- 
> 2.18.2
>