Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:00:23 +0800 | From | zhong jiang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi:qlogicfas408: remove the same check in qlogicfas408_detect |
| |
On 2018/8/2 11:52, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:29 +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2018/8/2 11:21, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 10:45 +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >>>> we should not use same check in a expression. just remove one >>>> of them. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c | 3 +-- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c b/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> index 8b471a9..1409ac1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> @@ -567,8 +567,7 @@ void qlogicfas408_setup(int qbase, int id, int int_type) >>>> int qlogicfas408_detect(int qbase, int int_type) >>>> { >>>> REG1; >>>> - return (((inb(qbase + 0xe) ^ inb(qbase + 0xe)) == 7) && >>>> - ((inb(qbase + 0xe) ^ inb(qbase + 0xe)) == 7)); >>>> + return (inb(qbase + 0xe) ^ inb(qbase + 0xe)) == 7; >>>> } >>> Does inb() have any side effects? >> just redundant. is it necessary for this . Maybe I miss something. > If doubletest.cocci came up with this patch, I think that script is > wrong and needs a thorough review. > > Bart. > Ok, Maybe I am wrong with this issue. Thank you for clarification.
Sincerely, zhong jiang >
| |