From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: gianfar: Delete unnecessary variable initialisations in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table() Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:15:14 +0100 Message-ID: <56992922.4080500@users.sourceforge.net> References: <5698C61A.90504@users.sourceforge.net> <20160115102947.GI4764@mwanda> <5698D949.6000404@users.sourceforge.net> <20160115.114253.673366436532953675.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Claudiu Manoil , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall To: David Miller , Dan Carpenter Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160115.114253.673366436532953675.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.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