From d167b6e1fb8ad386b17485ca88804d14f1695805 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:49:43 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] hwrng: cleanup in hwrng_register() My static checker complains that: drivers/char/hw_random/core.c:341 hwrng_register() warn: we tested 'old_rng' before and it was 'false' The problem is that sometimes we test "if (!old_rng)" and sometimes we test "if (must_register_misc)". The static checker knows they are equivalent but a human being reading the code could easily be confused. I have simplified the code by removing the "must_register_misc" variable and I have removed the redundant check on "if (!old_rng)". Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter Reviewed-by: Rusty Russell Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu --- drivers/char/hw_random/core.c | 10 +++------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c index a0f7724852eb..cf49f1c88f01 100644 --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c @@ -302,7 +302,6 @@ err_misc_dereg: int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) { - int must_register_misc; int err = -EINVAL; struct hwrng *old_rng, *tmp; @@ -327,7 +326,6 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) goto out_unlock; } - must_register_misc = (current_rng == NULL); old_rng = current_rng; if (!old_rng) { err = hwrng_init(rng); @@ -336,13 +334,11 @@ int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng) current_rng = rng; } err = 0; - if (must_register_misc) { + if (!old_rng) { err = register_miscdev(); if (err) { - if (!old_rng) { - hwrng_cleanup(rng); - current_rng = NULL; - } + hwrng_cleanup(rng); + current_rng = NULL; goto out_unlock; } } -- 2.39.5