qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] scsi/esp-pci: Remove redundant statement in esp_pci


From: Laurent Vivier
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] scsi/esp-pci: Remove redundant statement in esp_pci_io_write()
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 14:00:23 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

Le 10/03/2020 à 12:52, Chenqun (kuhn) a écrit :
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Laurent Vivier [mailto:address@hidden]
>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 8:22 PM
>> To: Chenqun (kuhn) <address@hidden>; qemu-
>> address@hidden; address@hidden
>> Cc: address@hidden; Euler Robot <address@hidden>;
>> Zhanghailiang <address@hidden>; Paolo Bonzini
>> <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] scsi/esp-pci: Remove redundant statement in
>> esp_pci_io_write()
>>
>> Le 02/03/2020 à 14:07, Chen Qun a écrit :
>>> Clang static code analyzer show warning:
>>>   hw/scsi/esp-pci.c:198:9: warning: Value stored to 'size' is never read
>>>         size = 4;
>>>         ^      ~
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> Cc:Fam Zheng
>> <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/scsi/esp-pci.c | 1 -
>>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/scsi/esp-pci.c b/hw/scsi/esp-pci.c index
>>> d5a1f9e017..2e6cc07d4e 100644
>>> --- a/hw/scsi/esp-pci.c
>>> +++ b/hw/scsi/esp-pci.c
>>> @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ static void esp_pci_io_write(void *opaque, hwaddr
>> addr,
>>>          val <<= shift;
>>>          val |= current & ~(mask << shift);
>>>          addr &= ~3;
>>> -        size = 4;
>>>      }
>>
>> perhaps a "g_assert(size >= 4)" instead would be cleaner to mute the warning?
>>
> Yes, add 'g_assert(size >= 4)' can mute the warning.
> 
>>
>> I think it's a good point to update the size if in the future the code below 
>> is
>> modified to use size.
>>
> Hmm, maybe it is true.
> 
> So, let's  keep ' size = 4'  and  add 'g_assert(size >= 4)' after if() 
> statement , shall we?

Yes, it's what I would prefer. But it's a question of taste...

Paolo? Fam?

Thanks,
Laurent




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]