Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171]:52839 "EHLO mail-ob0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932353Ab3INUaQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:30:16 -0400 Message-ID: <5234C755.80709@lwfinger.net> (sfid-20130914_223025_346905_4C5847C6) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:30:13 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Shtylyov CC: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] rtlwifi: rtl8192de: Fix smatch warnings in rtl8192de/hw.c References: <1379094304-22041-1-git-send-email-Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <1379094304-22041-3-git-send-email-Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <5234C03A.2070701@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: <5234C03A.2070701@cogentembedded.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/14/2013 02:59 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 09/13/2013 09:44 PM, Larry Finger wrote: > >> Smatch lists the following: >> CHECK drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c >> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c:1200 rtl92de_set_qos() info: >> ignoring unreachable code. >> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c:1200 rtl92de_set_qos() info: >> ignoring unreachable code. > >> Dead code is removed. > > It is instead commented out, including non-dead code it seems... > >> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c >> index 7dd8f6d..c9b0894 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/hw.c >> @@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@ void rtl92d_linked_set_reg(struct ieee80211_hw *hw) >> * mac80211 will send pkt when scan */ >> void rtl92de_set_qos(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, int aci) >> { >> +/* >> struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw); >> rtl92d_dm_init_edca_turbo(hw); >> return; > > Shouldn't the comment start here (and *return* removed)? It's also > better to remove the dead code than just to comment it out. That would leave some unused variables. >> @@ -1213,6 +1214,7 @@ void rtl92de_set_qos(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, int aci) >> RT_ASSERT(false, "invalid aci: %d !\n", aci); >> break; >> } >> + */ >> } I'm not sure what that unreachable code might do, thus I saved it as a comment for possible future use. I need to do further evaluation on this fragment, and probably consult with the Realtek engineers. Larry