On 09/12/2018 17:13, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Le 09/12/2018 à 16:01, Colin King a écrit : >> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> >> >> Currently the node == -1 check is being performed twice, the >> second check is redundant and can be removed. Fix this by >> removing the redundant second check and moving the first check >> into a combined check with the result from the olpc_ofw call. >> >> Detected by cppcheck: >> Identical condition '(s32)node==-1', second condition is always false >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]> >> --- >> arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c >> b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c >> index b4ab779f1d47..658363ec3ff3 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/olpc/olpc_dt.c >> @@ -28,10 +28,7 @@ static phandle __init olpc_dt_getsibling(phandle node) >> const void *args[] = { (void *)node }; >> void *res[] = { &node }; >> - if ((s32)node == -1) >> - return 0; >> - >> - if (olpc_ofw("peer", args, res) || (s32)node == -1) >> + if (((s32)node == -1) || olpc_ofw("peer", args, res)) >> return 0; >> return node; > > 'res' is { &node } > > Could 'node' be modified by 'olpc_ofw(..., res)' and set to -1? > > In other words, I'm not sure that the 2nd check is a redundant here.
Quite right. My mistake. Urgh. > > Just my 2c, > > CJ >
