Commit d167b6e1 authored Jan 30, 2014 by Dan Carpenter Committed by Herbert Xu Feb 09, 2014

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 <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

parent fecfd7f7

drivers/char/hw_random/core.c

+3 −7

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -302,7 +302,6 @@ static int register_miscdev(void)

		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;
		}
		goto out_unlock;
		}
		}