From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755295AbaE1UKk (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:40 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]:37678 "EHLO mail-we0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754899AbaE1UKg (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:10:21 +0100 From: Giedrius Rekasius To: walter harms Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Remove unnecessary assignment to "box" in uncore_pci_remove(...) Message-ID: <20140528200609.GA1901@vaio> References: <1401268294-28634-1-git-send-email-giedrius.rekasius@gmail.com> <5385B764.6090301@bfs.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5385B764.6090301@bfs.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:16:04PM +0200, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 28.05.2014 11:11, schrieb Giedrius Rekasius: > > Local variable "box" gets assigned correct value when it is initialized. > > There is no need to assign the same value again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Giedrius Rekasius > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c | 1 - > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > > index 65bbbea..8cbbb1b 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c > > @@ -3817,7 +3817,6 @@ static void uncore_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) > > struct intel_uncore_pmu *pmu; > > int i, cpu, phys_id = pcibus_to_physid[pdev->bus->number]; > > > > - box = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); > > if (!box) { > > for (i = 0; i < UNCORE_EXTRA_PCI_DEV_MAX; i++) { > > if (extra_pci_dev[phys_id][i] == pdev) { > > Just a remark, > for readability it is better to remove the other one. I could move the declaration itself closer to the if statement while still keeping whole statement in one line. On the other hand I'm not so sure if it makes any real difference to have assignment right next to the if statement compared to a few lines above it. Regards, Giedrius