linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: vt6656: Fix unnecessary parantheses

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]

Message-ID: <20180108154526.GB12786@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:45:26 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, forest@...ttletooquiet.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: vt6656: Fix unnecessary parantheses

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:05:34AM +0530, Sumit Pundir wrote:
> This patch fixes a few coding style issues as noted by checkpatch.pl
> related to unnecessary parantheses.
> 
> This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl warnings:
> 
> WARNING: Unnecessary parentheses around 'priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MAJOR_VER] == 0x1'
> WARNING: Unnecessary parentheses around 'priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MINOR_VER] >= 0x4'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> index 1b51b83..c15ae72 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c
> @@ -266,8 +266,8 @@ static int vnt_init_registers(struct vnt_private *priv)
>  
>  	/* load vt3266 calibration parameters in EEPROM */
>  	if (priv->rf_type == RF_VT3226D0) {
> -		if ((priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MAJOR_VER] == 0x1) &&
> -		    (priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MINOR_VER] >= 0x4)) {
> +		if (priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MAJOR_VER] == 0x1 &&
> +		    priv->eeprom[EEP_OFS_MINOR_VER] >= 0x4) {

No, now you have to guess if && or == or >= comes first :(