>> @@ -3015,11 +2859,6 @@ static int init_slave(struct gbe_priv *g
>> }
>>
>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "link-interface",
>> - &slave->link_interface)) {
>> - dev_warn(gbe_dev->dev,
>> - "missing link-interface value defaulting to 1G
>> mac-phy link\n");
>> - slave->link_interface = SGMII_LINK_MAC_PHY;
>> - }
>>
>> slave->node = node;
>> slave->open = false;
>> …
>>
>>
>> Now I wonder about the suggested change for the if statement here.
>> Should any more software adjustments be considered so that it will be avoided
>> to delete only a questionable part from a function call within a condition
>> check?
>
> I don't understand the problem.
I suggest to take another look at the details in this test result.
> You put *s on the { } and two statements, and you get - on the lines
> that contain the { } and the two statements.
This is the general analysis approach.
> Nothing is being deleted anyway. The -s are just a concise way to
> indicate the lines on which you requested a match with the *s.
I am using the asterisk functionality of the semantic patch language
as usual.
These minus characters indicate lines for possible deletions according to
the diff format, don't they?
I doubt that such code can be still compiled after an incomplete
removal of the shown block would be applied because of the generated
update suggestion.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
