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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <2ff30988089f3cbc0d2127dbfaa29955e0449997.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 03:52:14 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "zhongjiang@...wei.com" <zhongjiang@...wei.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 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.