On 10/31/2025 4:34 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:26:33 +0100
A pointer was assigned to a variable. The same pointer was used for
the destination parameter of a memcpy() call.
This function is documented in the way that the same value is returned.
Thus convert two separate statements into a direct variable assignment for
the return value from a memory copy action.
The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <[email protected]>
This does not match the address this patch was received from, therefore
DCO does not appear to be satisfied. I cannot accept this.
---
drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
index fa723a2bdfa9..c1b315d1689c 100644
--- a/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
+++ b/drivers/accel/qaic/qaic_data.c
@@ -1171,8 +1171,8 @@ static inline int copy_partial_exec_reqs(struct
qaic_device *qdev, struct bo_sli
* Copy over the last entry. Here we need to adjust len to the left over
* size, and set src and dst to the entry it is copied to.
*/
- last_req = fifo_at(dbc->req_q_base, (tail + first_n) % dbc->nelem);
- memcpy(last_req, reqs + slice->nents - 1, sizeof(*reqs));
+ last_req = memcpy(fifo_at(dbc->req_q_base, (tail + first_n) %
dbc->nelem),
+ reqs + slice->nents - 1, sizeof(*reqs));
The new version reads worse to me, so I do not consider this to be an
improvement. This is not a critical path, so I doubt any performance
increase that may exist outweighs the impact to readability.
-Jeff
