linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi:qlogicfas408: remove the same check in qlogicfas408

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:00:23 +0800
From:   zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
CC:     "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        "aacraid@...rosemi.com" <aacraid@...rosemi.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "john.garry@...wei.com" <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
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@...wei.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
>