From: Rusty Russell Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:00:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] hw_random: cleanup in hwrng_register() Message-Id: <87k3dgvgzg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> List-Id: References: <20140130114943.GB12734@elgon.mountain> In-Reply-To: <20140130114943.GB12734@elgon.mountain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dan Carpenter , Matt Mackall Cc: Herbert Xu , Satoru Takeuchi , Paul Gortmaker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Dan Carpenter writes: > My static checker complains that: > > drivers/char/hw_random/core.c:341 hwrng_register() > warn: we tested 'old_rng' before and it was 'false' > > The problem is that sometimes we test "if (!old_rng)" and sometimes we > test "if (must_register_misc)". The static checker knows they are > equivalent but a human being reading the code could easily be confused. > > I have simplified the code by removing the "must_register_misc" variable > and I have removed the redundant check on "if (!old_rng)". > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Yeah, clearer too. Reviewed-by: Rusty Russell Thanks, Rusty. > > diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c > index b9495a8c05c6..463382036a01 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c > +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c > @@ -301,7 +301,6 @@ err_misc_dereg: > > int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) > { > - int must_register_misc; > int err = -EINVAL; > struct hwrng *old_rng, *tmp; > > @@ -326,7 +325,6 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) > goto out_unlock; > } > > - must_register_misc = (current_rng = NULL); > old_rng = current_rng; > if (!old_rng) { > err = hwrng_init(rng); > @@ -335,13 +333,11 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) > current_rng = rng; > } > err = 0; > - if (must_register_misc) { > + if (!old_rng) { > err = register_miscdev(); > if (err) { > - if (!old_rng) { > - hwrng_cleanup(rng); > - current_rng = NULL; > - } > + hwrng_cleanup(rng); > + current_rng = NULL; > goto out_unlock; > } > }