Return-Path: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:22:43 +0200 From: Andrei Emeltchenko To: Szymon Janc Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] android/gatt: Fix dead code warnings Message-ID: <20141111082205.GA9152@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <1415625918-10189-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> <1584207.SFKaHYrozt@leonov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1584207.SFKaHYrozt@leonov> Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Szymon, On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 09:05:41PM +0100, Szymon Janc wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > On Monday 10 of November 2014 15:25:18 Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko > > > > gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions() used everywhere without check since > > those conditions are checked already. > > It would make sense to put such warning into commit message if you are > referring to it in subject. > > > --- > > android/gatt.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/android/gatt.c b/android/gatt.c > > index 086bb94..04101f6 100644 > > --- a/android/gatt.c > > +++ b/android/gatt.c > > @@ -5992,8 +5992,7 @@ static void write_cmd_request(const uint8_t *cmd, > > uint16_t cmd_len, if (!attrib) > > return; > > > > - if (!gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions)) > > - return; > > + gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(attrib, &permissions); > > > > if (check_device_permissions(dev, cmd[0], permissions)) > > return; > > So if we always pass valid pointers to this function, then maybe we should > change it definition to something like: > > uint32_t gatt_db_attribute_get_permissions(struct gatt_db_attribute *attrib); > Do we really need a helper which just does reference? Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko