Re: [PATCH][next] bpf: remove redundant assignment to err

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 07:07:20PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 03/06/2019 18:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:39:16 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> >> On 03/06/2019 18:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> On Mon,  3 Jun 2019 18:02:47 +0100, Colin King wrote:  
> >>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> The variable err is assigned with the value -EINVAL that is never
> >>>> read and it is re-assigned a new value later on.  The assignment is
> >>>> redundant and can be removed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  kernel/bpf/devmap.c | 2 +-
> >>>>  kernel/bpf/xskmap.c | 2 +-
> >>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >>>> index 5ae7cce5ef16..a76cc6412fc4 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c
> >>>> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static u64 dev_map_bitmap_size(const union bpf_attr *attr)
> >>>>  static struct bpf_map *dev_map_alloc(union bpf_attr *attr)
> >>>>  {
> >>>>  	struct bpf_dtab *dtab;
> >>>> -	int err = -EINVAL;
> >>>> +	int err;
> >>>>  	u64 cost;  
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps keep the variables ordered longest to shortest?  
> >>
> >> Is that a required coding standard?
> > 
> > For networking code, yes.  Just look around the files you're changing
> > and see for yourself.
> 
> Ah, informal coding standards. Great. Won't this end up with more diff
> churn?

Everyone knows that netdev uses reverse Christmas tree declarations...

regards,
dan carpenter