Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:07:29 +0200 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH linux-next] xfrm: Remove redundant fields |
| |
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 09:17:58AM +0000, luo penghao wrote: > From: penghao luo <luo.penghao@zte.com.cn> > > the variable err is not necessary in such places. It should be revmoved > for the simplicity of the code. > > The clang_analyzer complains as follows: > > net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c:530: warning: > > Although the value stored to 'err' is used in the enclosing expression, > the value is never actually read from 'err'. > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn> > Signed-off-by: penghao luo <luo.penghao@zte.com.cn> > --- > net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c > index 3df0861..ff34667 100644 > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c > @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type) > goto drop; > } > > - if ((err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) { > + if ((xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) {
I agree that assigning the value to err is not needed. But you may also wish to consider:
1. Dropping the () around the call to xfrm_parse_spi, which seem out of place now. 2. Dropping the explicit check against zero
Which would leave you with:
if (xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) {
> XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR); > goto drop; > } > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type) > } > > seq = 0; > - if (!spi && (err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) { > + if (!spi && (xfrm_parse_spi(skb, nexthdr, &spi, &seq)) != 0) { > secpath_reset(skb); > XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINHDRERROR); > goto drop; > -- > 2.15.2 > >
| |