On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This is just a cleanup to make the static checkers happy. We don't need
> to check "own" twice.
It's indeed probably pretty pointless to put if (!A || (B && A)) because
then B, which may rely on A being true, has already occurred. Would
anyone find if (!A || (A && B)) to be useful for readability? I found
20-some other occurrences, mostly of the latter type.
julia
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/vxge/vxge-traffic.c b/drivers/net/vxge/vxge-traffic.c
> index 42cc298..4c10d6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/vxge/vxge-traffic.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/vxge/vxge-traffic.c
> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ enum vxge_hw_status vxge_hw_ring_rxd_next_completed(
> *t_code = (u8)VXGE_HW_RING_RXD_T_CODE_GET(control_0);
>
> /* check whether it is not the end */
> - if (!own || ((*t_code == VXGE_HW_RING_T_CODE_FRM_DROP) && own)) {
> + if (!own || *t_code == VXGE_HW_RING_T_CODE_FRM_DROP) {
>
> vxge_assert(((struct vxge_hw_ring_rxd_1 *)rxdp)->host_control !=
> 0);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
