This code does not call deinit_card(card); in an error case, as done in
other error-handling code in the same function. But actually, the called
function init_sram can only return 0, so there is no need for the error
check at all.
init_sram is also given a void return type, and its single return statement
at the end of the function is dropped.
A simplified version of the sematic match that finds this problem is as
follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@r exists@
@r@
statement S1,S2,S3;
constant C1,C2,C3;
@@
*if (...)
{... S1 return -C1;}
...
*if (...)
{... when != S1
return -C2;}
...
*if (...)
{... S1 return -C3;}
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
}
-static int __devinit
+static void __devinit
init_sram(struct idt77252_dev *card)
{
int i;
SAR_REG_RXFD);
IPRINTK("%s: SRAM initialization complete.\n", card->name);
- return 0;
}
static int __devinit
writel(readl(SAR_REG_CFG) | conf, SAR_REG_CFG);
- if (init_sram(card) < 0)
- return -1;
+ init_sram(card);
/********************************************************************/
/* A L L O C R A M A N D S E T V A R I O U S T H I N G S */