_port_ is already known to be a valid index in the callers [1]. So these checks are unnecessary.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/16/469 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465287 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465291 Suggested-by: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gust...@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c | 9 --------- 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c index b251d53..c6d6a35 100644 --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/hwtstamp.c @@ -179,9 +179,6 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_hwtstamp_set(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, if (!chip->info->ptp_support) return -EOPNOTSUPP; - if (port < 0 || port >= mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip)) - return -EINVAL; - if (copy_from_user(&config, ifr->ifr_data, sizeof(config))) return -EFAULT; @@ -206,9 +203,6 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_hwtstamp_get(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port, if (!chip->info->ptp_support) return -EOPNOTSUPP; - if (port < 0 || port >= mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip)) - return -EINVAL; - return copy_to_user(ifr->ifr_data, config, sizeof(*config)) ? -EFAULT : 0; } @@ -255,9 +249,6 @@ static u8 *mv88e6xxx_should_tstamp(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, if (!chip->info->ptp_support) return NULL; - if (port < 0 || port >= mv88e6xxx_num_ports(chip)) - return NULL; - hdr = parse_ptp_header(skb, type); if (!hdr) return NULL; -- 2.7.4
