From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Justin P. Mattock" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5]acpi:glue.c Fix warning: variable 'ret' set but not used Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:41:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4C2C9B0C.80004@gmail.com> References: <4C2B9F49.8090304@gmail.com> <4C2A6B6C.1000306@gmail.com> <4C29674C.9070503@gmail.com> <4C28E14D.5050701@gmail.com> <1277621246-10960-4-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <1277621246-10960-1-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <7214.1277729293@redhat.com> <8066.1277750854@redhat.com> <22319.1277826461@redhat.com> <25800.1277889215@redhat.com> <16513.1277976706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16513.1277976706@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 07/01/2010 02:31 AM, David Howells wrote: > Justin P. Mattock wrote: > >> + if (fn) { >> + dev_warn(&acpi_dev->dev, >> + "Failed to create firmware_node link to %s %s: %d\n", >> + dev_driver_string(dev), dev_name(dev), fn); >> + } else if (pn) { >> + dev_warn(&acpi_dev->dev, >> + "Failed to create physical_node link to %s %s: %d\n", >> + dev_driver_string(dev), dev_name(dev), pn); >> + return AE_ERROR; >> + } > > There's one more question to ask yourself: do you really need two dev_warn() > statements? You could have just one that prints both error values: > > if (fn || pn) > dev_warn(&acpi_dev->dev, > "Failed to create link(s) to %s %s:" > " fn=%d pn=%d\n", > dev_driver_string(dev), dev_name(dev), > fn, pn); ah... I did think about that a few days ago, but had no idea how to really follow through with this.. and from looking at what you did, it's as simple as a || b > > Not sure it's worth going that far. You could reduce it still further: > > if (fn || pn) > dev_warn(&acpi_dev->dev, > "Failed to create link(s) to %s %s:" > " %d\n", > dev_driver_string(dev), dev_name(dev), > fn ?: pn); I don't mind resending with your change to this. > > Is it that important to know which failed to be created, or that both failed > to be created? > > David > maybe a simple test(prog) case can be created to simulate what this is doing, just to make sure. Justin P. Mattock