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

[zhong jiang <zhongjiang@huawei.com>]

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@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  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.

 Thanks
 zhong jiang
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
>
>