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

Message-ID: <5B627AB2.8000101@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 11:29:54 +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>,
        "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "john.garry@...wei.com" <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi:qlogicfas408: remove the same check in qlogicfas408_detect

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.

 Thanks,
 zhong jiang
> Bart.
>
>
>