Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <02650a6d4c82bce62a9625714540ea75f7b3f571.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath9k: remove unneeded variable from
 ath9k_dump_legacy_btcoex()
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     baomingtong001@208suo.com, kvalo@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:38:15 +0200
In-Reply-To: <695b68601eecd648b7531f2e40561edb@208suo.com>
References: <20230614061007.62077-1-luojianhong@cdjrlc.com>
         <695b68601eecd648b7531f2e40561edb@208suo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.3 (3.48.3-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2023-06-14 at 14:13 +0800, baomingtong001@208suo.com wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>=20
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c:501:5-8: Unneeded variable: "len".
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Mingtong Bao <baomingtong001@208suo.com>

Same here. I'm even wondering if there are different people behind this?

Also, I'm wondering what you're up to - are you all training or
something? I see the same kind of patches that are the same kind of
broken from a handful of different people?

> ---
>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c=20
> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
> index b457e52dd365..f3d1bc02e633 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
> @@ -498,14 +498,13 @@ static int ath9k_dump_legacy_btcoex(struct=20
> ath_softc *sc, u8 *buf, u32 size)
>   {
>=20
>       struct ath_btcoex *btcoex =3D &sc->btcoex;
> -    u32 len =3D 0;
>=20
>       ATH_DUMP_BTCOEX("Stomp Type", btcoex->bt_stomp_type);
>       ATH_DUMP_BTCOEX("BTCoex Period (msec)", btcoex->btcoex_period);
>       ATH_DUMP_BTCOEX("Duty Cycle", btcoex->duty_cycle);
>       ATH_DUMP_BTCOEX("BT Wait time", btcoex->bt_wait_time);
>=20
> -    return len;
> +    return 0;
>=20

This won't even build.

Please try to understand the code you're modifying before you do. And
no, build-testing it (and fixing it) will not result anything better.

johannes