Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi:qlogicfas408: remove the same check in qlogicfas408_detect

[Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>]

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.