From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933289AbeE1QEq (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2018 12:04:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47869 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933235AbeE1QDt (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2018 12:03:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:29:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: "Takashi Sakamoto" Cc: , "Colin King" , "Oleksandr Andrushchenko" , , "Jaroslav Kysela" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: xen-front: remove redundant error check on ret In-Reply-To: References: <20180527212312.23997-1-colin.king@canonical.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 May 2018 00:42:12 +0200, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > > Hi, > > On May 28 2018 06:23, Colin King wrote: > > From: Colin Ian King > > > > The error for a -ve value in ret is redundant as all previous > > assignments to ret have an associated -ve check and hence it > > is impossible for ret to be less that zero at the point of the > > check. Remove this redundant error check. > > > > Detected by CoveritScan, CID#1469407 ("Logically Dead code") > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King > > --- > > sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c > > index d70a62e7f910..102d6e096cc8 100644 > > --- a/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c > > +++ b/sound/xen/xen_snd_front_evtchnl.c > > @@ -351,8 +351,6 @@ int xen_snd_front_evtchnl_create_all(struct xen_snd_front_info *front_info, > > } > > } > > } > > - if (ret < 0) > > - goto fail; > > front_info->num_evt_pairs = num_streams; > > return 0; > > Yep. All branches for error path on the nested for loop have goto > statement, thus no need to check error outer the loop. > > Reviewed-by: Takashi Sakamoto Applied, thanks. Takashi