On 2018/8/2 11:52, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:29 +ACs-0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2018/8/2 11:21, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 10:45 +ACs-0800, zhong jiang wrote: >>>> we should not use same check in a expression. just remove one >>>> of them. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang+AEA-huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c +AHw- 3 +ACs--- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+ACs-), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c b/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> index 8b471a9..1409ac1 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> +ACsAKwAr- b/drivers/scsi/qlogicfas408.c >>>> +AEAAQA- -567,8 +ACs-567,7 +AEAAQA- void qlogicfas408+AF8-setup(int qbase, int id, int int+AF8-type) >>>> int qlogicfas408+AF8-detect(int qbase, int int+AF8-type) >>>> +AHs- >>>> REG1; >>>> - return (((inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe) +AF4- inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe)) == 7) +ACYAJg- >>>> - ((inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe) +AF4- inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe)) == 7)); >>>> +ACs- return (inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe) +AF4- inb(qbase +ACs- 0xe)) == 7; >>>> +AH0- >>> 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. > Ok, Maybe I am wrong with this issue. Thank you for clarification. Sincerely, zhong jiang >
