From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754058AbcAORPb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:15:31 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:63607 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750769AbcAORP3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:15:29 -0500 Subject: Re: gianfar: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() To: David Miller , Dan Carpenter References: <5698C61A.90504@users.sourceforge.net> <20160115102947.GI4764@mwanda> <5698D949.6000404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160115.114253.673366436532953675.davem@davemloft.net> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Claudiu Manoil , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall From: SF Markus Elfring X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56992922.4080500@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:15:14 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160115.114253.673366436532953675.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:mUSmsBfIVu1X9xT4/llunyLfZPngs5u/fq8ZjZ+OimX1a4XUrGh lm4IOwf0uBKmmpVvxrrDzswiF5y3M/lzKY3RA1gmk0OgjpPPamXLBtBIxuaanrUXkrLtN64 Ig5o6OZIYmFVBaAfYPCmvVV6NmJ7428WAhsrx0J8K/XBRwICWlKcDQ9OzUe6aQ7UdgMgsTu MIZVJQZweUSo0XHsUZbTQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:/F/j2APTUSo=:o4PdT89mjgX61uGvDixgtD b91Cj4/4ANrE9SascJ9r8+MLEZdF16/25kE8eUBp9KpeEVJJFk6AHO6dxpWlnpYrqwxEpwQGI SA66zqNzrVHC5Z1fRMVeZJg54yM07Zl6DVGVewIjd70ky0+ocrnRlq+4uO5nfLmOs+7ZnSMbn 7FcuBICUZD3rtDqzXi24kipy/L9fGMtUXgAWNK/rtMje+uWZoJnjB0mPjUnvevQnG4T3qi+5u LA5jwWS68NZGJrJVof/MDcO3yX5OQtZu0YZ+7+4rO06qjUrI5xw4VeaINxwII6cF19VVMEXSL TkTDFwvdn/eO8L+FMQ6hDFnbfZ0CTR2oDhfLUcjeoMaHRc4fHq7c4IB9CFTjYW18uNSf5z5r+ 3ybq+z5rc+afX7VqwrjY1VRTWjHbaS1qFRfLxVDtKAEgcAyLi54hfXZPMVzPmtNvbfDTwh9al xmiQRWI6O08EqQaoJO3tpezCHwmWnpI9fh7T2QY9HYZDqyjiIfNszH10MAtgL41zoY2jEqDLF 0MJxcok3cv7C1XEkJYmzcuMQ+c5rjk/uyvMtpQzawHa6DVOXUPaN/uuMA3VQ05tbSsHhIDhVC /xaJk+idu7AMj6GYsEoJE/MgizQ4Li1SNd5E86bEcvH85LS/2nuIJIFCHlbkp4Sx52h7g1FXW A++STdiscyU03HqSnqjrCkTlBELF5OJAJa9CUpgHRxAidaKL9YCseCuPTMOmMxgpW55PkgpHn ai6X9yQSdkCGF/AUz4qe+p3A0FzQ3OL4Kpo1hGu/QMv/MRNE3OqaiwDcyGTEz/3qGfhjOv+5R nlRIRiz Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> This is a write only variable. We can just remove it. >> >> Can a static source code analysis tool like the software "http://smatch.sourceforge.net/" >> detect that such a variable is not read by this function implementation so far? > > No, I imagine that there are a few tools available which can point such update candidates out. There are various software development challenges to consider. > but a human can. Some software developers and source code reviewers are struggling with mentioned implementation details as usual. Do they also wonder how the discussed variable assignment was left over in a specific function? > I am going to be honest, and say that I am completely ignoring most of > your static checker patches. I am curious if you would reconsider the affected source code places once more when you will be notified about related issues by other tools or persons. > You don't put enough care and consideration into them, Would you like to explain this impression a bit more? > and I really don't have time to waste on looking at something like that. Thanks for your feedback. Various open issues are competing for our attention as usual. Regards, Markus