Re: [V9fs-developer] [Patch] Dead code in fs/9p/vfs_inode.c

[Eric Sesterhenn / Snakebyte <snakebyte@gmx.de>]

* Russ Cox (rsc@swtch.com) wrote:
> >coverity (id #971) found some dead code. In all error
> >cases ret is NULL, so we can remove the if statement.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@gmx.de>
> >
> >--- linux-2.6.17-git11/fs/9p/vfs_inode.c.orig   2006-06-29 
> >00:50:53.000000000 +0200
> >+++ linux-2.6.17-git11/fs/9p/vfs_inode.c        2006-06-29 
> >00:51:11.000000000 +0200
> >@@ -386,9 +386,6 @@ v9fs_inode_from_fid(struct v9fs_session_
> >
> > error:
> >        kfree(fcall);
> >-       if (ret)
> >-               iput(ret);
> >-
> >        return ERR_PTR(err);
> > }
> 
> What about when someone changes the code and does have ret != NULL here?
> This seems like reasonable defensive programming to me.
> 
> Is the official LK policy that we can't have code that trips coverity
> checks like this?

If this is whats agreed upon I will no longer send patches for
such bugs, and mark them as ignore in the coverity system.
But I guess it makes also sense to remove unused code, because I
am not sure if gcc can figure out to remove it. In this case
the generated object file is 10 bytes smaller.

Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/