Re: [PATCH linux-next] USB: serial: ftdi_sio: remove the unneeded result variable

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:17:26PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:05:39PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 01:38:27PM +0000, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Return the value usb_control_msg() directly instead of storing
> > > it in another redundant variable.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xu Panda <xu.panda@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > > -       rv = usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > > -                           usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > > -                           FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > > -                           value, index,
> > > -                           NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> > > -       return rv;
> > > +       return usb_control_msg(port->serial->dev,
> > > +                              usb_sndctrlpipe(port->serial->dev, 0),
> > > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST,
> > > +                              FTDI_SIO_SET_BAUDRATE_REQUEST_TYPE,
> > > +                              value, index,
> > > +                              NULL, 0, WDR_SHORT_TIMEOUT);
> > >  }
> > 
> > That's really not the correct use of the return value of
> > usb_control_msg().  Can you fix this up to properly handle the return
> > value, or better yet, use the usb_control_msg_send() call?
> 
> It is actually correct since the buffer length is zero here (i.e. it
> returns a negative errno or 0).

Yeah, that's a hack :)

> But I'm also ignoring patches from this email address as it is used by
> multiple users, and of which none so far has replied to feedback (as if
> it's all automated).

Great, that's the correct thing to do here, thanks.

greg k-h