On 13/02/17 10:45, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com> writes:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>
>> The check for retval being less than zero is always true since
>> retval equal to -EPIPE at that point.  Replace the existing
>> conditional with just return retval.
>>
>> Detected with CoverityScan, CID#114349 ("Logically dead code")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> index 3525626..17c0810 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
>> @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ static int ch9_postconfig(struct usbtest_dev *dev)
>>  				dev_err(&iface->dev,
>>  						"hs dev qualifier --> %d\n",
>>  						retval);
>> -				return (retval < 0) ? retval : -EDOM;
>> +				return retval;
> 
> you're changing return value here, are you sure there's nothing else
> depending on this error?
> 
The code in the current state will never return -EDOM and will always
return retval, so this change actually makes no functional change, it
just removes a redundant check.  So it's not going to make a jot of
difference to the current behaver.