Re: [PATCH][next] Bluetooth: btintel_pcie: Remove structually deadcode

[Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>]

On 10/14/24 22:52, Everest K.C. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 6:02 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/24 10:30, Everest K.C. wrote:
>>> The switch case statement has a default branch. Thus, the return
>>> statement at the end of the function can never be reached.
>>> Fixing it by removing the return statement at the end of the
>>
>> Change "Fixing" to "Fix it"
> Will fix it in V2.
>>> function.
>>>
>>> This issue was reported by Coverity Scan.
>>> https://scan7.scan.coverity.com/#/project-view/51525/11354?selectedIssue=1600709
>>
>> Please include the output from the scan. People can't see this report
>> without logging in.
> The issue is no longer visible in Coverity. Though the code is still
> the same. The issue hasn't
> been fixed. Should I remove the link too ?

What's the use of including a link that don't show the problem?

>>>
>>> Fixes: 5ea625845b0f ("Bluetooth: btintel_pcie: Add handshake between driver and firmware")
>>> Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@everestkc.com.np>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/bluetooth/btintel_pcie.c | 1 -
>>>    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btintel_pcie.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btintel_pcie.c
>>> index e4ae8c898dfd..660496e55276 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btintel_pcie.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btintel_pcie.c
>>> @@ -391,7 +391,6 @@ static inline char *btintel_pcie_alivectxt_state2str(u32 alive_intr_ctxt)
>>>        default:
>>>                return "unknown";
>>>        }
>>> -     return "null";
>>
>> What happens when you build your patch with -Werror?
>> Do you see any build errors?
> I compiled the intel bluetooth module without error. Will mention that
> in V2 patch too.

Okay.

>>>    }
>>>
>>>    /* This function handles the MSI-X interrupt for gp0 cause (bit 0 in
>>

thanks,
-- Shuah