Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231020083743.11412-1-zhoujie@nfschina.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231020083743.11412-1-zhoujie@nfschina.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:58:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iJRDN=pzkBTqhJipnsDpqPS5ehxWUcKJ3RXAR2=hkD-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BPATCH=5D_power=3A_main=3A_Remove_unnecessary_=E2=80=98NULL?=
        =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99_initialization_from_last=5Ffailed=5Fstep=5Fshow=28=29?=
To:     ZhouJie <zhoujie@nfschina.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:38 AM ZhouJie <zhoujie@nfschina.com> wrote:
>
> Declaring char *last_failed_step; is reasonable because you can later
> assign the function's return value to last_failed_step without
> explicitly assigning an initial value.

Did you want to say something like "it is not necessary to initialize
last_failed_step to NULL, because it is never read before being
assigned a value" ?

Also, to my eyes, last_failed_step is redundant and can be dropped
from that function entirely.

> Signed-off-by: ZhouJie <zhoujie@nfschina.com>
> ---
>  kernel/power/main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/power/main.c b/kernel/power/main.c
> index f6425ae3e8b05..24c675f6ab862 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/main.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/main.c
> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ static ssize_t last_failed_step_show(struct kobject *kobj,
>  {
>         int index;
>         enum suspend_stat_step step;
> -       char *last_failed_step = NULL;
> +       char *last_failed_step;
>
>         index = suspend_stats.last_failed_step + REC_FAILED_NUM - 1;
>         index %= REC_FAILED_NUM;
> --
> 2.18.2
>