From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Schmitz Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi:NCR5380: remove same check condition in NCR5380_select Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 19:32:37 +1200 Message-ID: <928ae07a-8c4a-05fc-16af-48fb6e9c341d@gmail.com> References: <1533179408-20631-1-git-send-email-zhongjiang@huawei.com> <5B627E71.5020600@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5B627E71.5020600@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: zhong jiang , Bart Van Assche Cc: "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "fthain@telegraphics.com.au" , "andy.shevchenko@gmail.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "john.garry@huawei.com" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> --- >>> 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 */ >>> if ((NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST) || >>> - (NCR5380_read(CURRENT_SCSI_DATA_REG) & hostdata->id_higher_mask) || >>> - (NCR5380_read(INITIATOR_COMMAND_REG) & ICR_ARBITRATION_LOST)) { >>> + (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"); >>> spin_lock_irq(&hostdata->lock); >> 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? Cheers, Michael > > Thanks > zhong jiang >> Thanks, >> >> Bart. >> >> >> > >