On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 09:33:17AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:24:31 +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]> > --- > arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c > index c0e22921ace1..745d02066308 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c > +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_crash.c > @@ -464,9 +464,7 @@ static int hv_crash_setup_trampdata(u64 trampoline_va) > return -1; > } > > - dest = (void *)trampoline_va; > - memcpy(dest, &hv_crash_asm32, size); > - > + dest = memcpy((void *)trampoline_va, &hv_crash_asm32, size);
I don't think this change is needed. There aren't that many places in the kernel tree that use this pattern. The pattern used by the original code is far more pervasive. Wei > dest += size; > dest = (void *)round_up((ulong)dest, 16); > tramp = (struct hv_crash_tramp_data *)dest; > -- > 2.51.1 >
