Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:49:43 +0300 | From | Dan Carpenter <> | Subject | [patch] hw_random: cleanup in hwrng_register() |
| |
My static checker complains that:
drivers/char/hw_random/core.c:341 hwrng_register() warn: we tested 'old_rng' before and it was 'false'
The problem is that sometimes we test "if (!old_rng)" and sometimes we test "if (must_register_misc)". The static checker knows they are equivalent but a human being reading the code could easily be confused.
I have simplified the code by removing the "must_register_misc" variable and I have removed the redundant check on "if (!old_rng)".
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c index b9495a8c05c6..463382036a01 100644 --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c @@ -301,7 +301,6 @@ err_misc_dereg: int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) { - int must_register_misc; int err = -EINVAL; struct hwrng *old_rng, *tmp; @@ -326,7 +325,6 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) goto out_unlock; } - must_register_misc = (current_rng == NULL); old_rng = current_rng; if (!old_rng) { err = hwrng_init(rng); @@ -335,13 +333,11 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) current_rng = rng; } err = 0; - if (must_register_misc) { + if (!old_rng) { err = register_miscdev(); if (err) { - if (!old_rng) { - hwrng_cleanup(rng); - current_rng = NULL; - } + hwrng_cleanup(rng); + current_rng = NULL; goto out_unlock; } }
| |