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 <[email protected]>
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;
}
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
