From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933023AbcIUIja (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:39:30 -0400 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:52526 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755413AbcIUIj1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:39:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:39:15 +0100 From: Eric Engestrom To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugfs: remove unused variable Message-ID: <20160921083915.GH3075@imgtec.com> References: <20160920161715.16924-1-eric.engestrom@imgtec.com> <20160921080111.GB15998@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160921080111.GB15998@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-Originating-IP: [10.60.4.28] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:01:11AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:17:15PM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom > > --- > > fs/debugfs/file.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c > > index 592059f..04eca0b 100644 > > --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c > > +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c > > @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) > > const struct dentry *dentry = F_DENTRY(filp); > > const struct file_operations *real_fops = REAL_FOPS_DEREF(dentry); > > const struct file_operations *proxy_fops = filp->f_op; > > - int r = 0; > > > > /* > > * We must not protect this against removal races here: the > > @@ -204,7 +203,7 @@ static int full_proxy_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) > > * ->i_private is still being meaningful here. > > */ > > if (real_fops->release) > > - r = real_fops->release(inode, filp); > > + real_fops->release(inode, filp); > > Hm, shouldn't we be propagating the result back up the call chain? You're right, sorry, I wasn't thinking. Correct fix incoming :) Cheers, Eric > > thanks, > > greg k-h