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>
int hwrng_register(struct hwrng *rng)
{
- int must_register_misc;
int err = -EINVAL;
struct hwrng *old_rng, *tmp;
goto out_unlock;
}
- must_register_misc = (current_rng == NULL);
old_rng = current_rng;
if (!old_rng) {
err = hwrng_init(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;
}
}