Re: [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau/fifo/gk104: remove redundant variable ret

[Danilo Krummrich]

On 1/16/24 13:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > The variable ret is being assigned a value but it isn't being
> > read afterwards. The assignment is redundant and so ret can be
> > removed.
> >
> > Cleans up clang scan build warning:
> > warning: Although the value stored to 'ret' is used in the enclosing
> > expression, the value is never actually read from 'ret'
> > [deadcode.DeadStores]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c | 4 ++--
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> > index a463289962b2..e96de14ce87e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/fifo.c
> > @@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ u64
> >   nvif_fifo_runlist(struct nvif_device *device, u64 engine)
> >   {
> >   	u64 runm = 0;
> > -	int ret, i;
> > +	int i;
> >   
> > -	if ((ret = nvif_fifo_runlists(device)))
> > +	if (nvif_fifo_runlists(device))
> >   		return runm;
>
> Could we return a literal zero here?  Otherwise, I'm surprised this
> doesn't trigger a static checker warning.

Why do you think so? Conditionally, runm is used later on as well. I don't
think the checker should complain about keeping the value single source.

If you agree, want to offer your RB?

- Danilo

> regards,
> dan carpenter