[4/4] drivers/atm/idt77252.c: Remove unnecessary error check

This code does not call deinit_card(card); in an error case, as done in
other error-handling code in the same function.  But actually, the called
function init_sram can only return 0, so there is no need for the error
check at all.

A simplified version of the sematic match that finds this problem is as
follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@r exists@
@r@
statement S1,S2,S3;
constant C1,C2,C3;
@@

*if (...)
 {... S1 return -C1;}
...
*if (...)
 {... when != S1
    return -C2;}
...
*if (...)
 {... S1 return -C3;}
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
 drivers/atm/idt77252.c |    3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Julia Lawall schrieb:
> This code does not call deinit_card(card); in an error case, as done in
> other error-handling code in the same function.  But actually, the called
> function init_sram can only return 0, so there is no need for the error
> check at all.
> 


did you set init_sram() to void ?
re,
 wh




> A simplified version of the sematic match that finds this problem is as
> follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> 
> // <smpl>
> @r exists@
> @r@
> statement S1,S2,S3;
> constant C1,C2,C3;
> @@
> 
> *if (...)
>  {... S1 return -C1;}
> ...
> *if (...)
>  {... when != S1
>     return -C2;}
> ...
> *if (...)
>  {... S1 return -C3;}
> // </smpl>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/atm/idt77252.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> index 1679cbf..08ccde6 100644
> --- a/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> +++ b/drivers/atm/idt77252.c
> @@ -3410,8 +3410,7 @@ init_card(struct atm_dev *dev)
>  
>  	writel(readl(SAR_REG_CFG) | conf, SAR_REG_CFG);
>  
> -	if (init_sram(card) < 0)
> -		return -1;
> +	init_sram(card);
>  
>  /********************************************************************/
>  /*  A L L O C   R A M   A N D   S E T   V A R I O U S   T H I N G S */
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010, walter harms wrote:

> 
> 
> Julia Lawall schrieb:
> > This code does not call deinit_card(card); in an error case, as done in
> > other error-handling code in the same function.  But actually, the called
> > function init_sram can only return 0, so there is no need for the error
> > check at all.
> > 
> 
> 
> did you set init_sram() to void ?

No, that indeed seems like a reasonable change.  Patch shortly.

julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html