Re: [PATCH] scsi:NCR5380: remove same check condition in NCR5380_select

From: Michael Schmitz
Date: Thu Aug 02 2018 - 12:02:29 EST

Am 02.08.2018 um 15:45 schrieb zhong jiang:
On 2018/8/2 11:26, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:10 +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
The same check condition is redundant, so remove one of them.

Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
index 90ea0f5..2ecaf3f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
@@ -999,8 +999,7 @@ static struct scsi_cmnd *NCR5380_select(struct Scsi_Host *instance,

/* Check for lost arbitration */
- (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask) ||
+ (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask)) {
NCR5380_write(MODE_REG, MR_BASE);
dsprintk(NDEBUG_ARBITRATION, instance, "lost arbitration, deasserting MR_ARBITRATE\n");
Has this patch been tested?
I check the issue by doubletest.cocci. Just review the code by myself. Maybe I miss something else.
please tell let me know if you any objection.

This redundant load of the ICR has been in the driver code for a long time. There's a small chance it is intentional, so at least minimal testing might be in order.

Finn - does the ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST bit have to be cleared by a write to the mode register? In that case, the first load would have been redundant and can be omitted without changing driver behaviour?



zhong jiang