On 9/2/24 00:39, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
In the macro definition of next_comb(), a parameter L1 is accepted,
but it is not used. Hence, it should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjin...@huawei.com>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>
I have pulled this into my tree
---
security/apparmor/include/label.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/apparmor/include/label.h
b/security/apparmor/include/label.h
index 2a72e6b17d68..2635eef0ae2b 100644
--- a/security/apparmor/include/label.h
+++ b/security/apparmor/include/label.h
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ int aa_label_next_confined(struct aa_label *l, int i);
#define label_for_each_cont(I, L, P) \
for (++((I).i); ((P) = (L)->vec[(I).i]); ++((I).i))
-#define next_comb(I, L1, L2) \
+#define next_comb(I, L2) \
do { \
(I).j++; \
if ((I).j >= (L2)->size) { \
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ do {
\
#define label_for_each_comb(I, L1, L2, P1, P2)
\
for ((I).i = (I).j = 0;
\
((P1) = (L1)->vec[(I).i]) && ((P2) = (L2)->vec[(I).j]); \
- (I) = next_comb(I, L1, L2))
+ (I) = next_comb(I, L2))
#define fn_for_each_comb(L1, L2, P1, P2, FN) \
({ \
