WARNING !A || A && B is equivalent to !A || B
This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <[email protected]>
---
arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
index a7c3ccf..754122d 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
@@ -691,9 +691,8 @@ static inline int scsw_tm_is_valid_pno(union scsw *scsw)
{
return (scsw->tm.fctl != 0) &&
(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND) &&
- (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
- ((scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) &&
- (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED)));
+ (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
+ (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED));
}
/**
--
1.8.3.1
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:51:59PM -0700, jing yangyang wrote:
> WARNING !A || A && B is equivalent to !A || B
>
> This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
>
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
> index a7c3ccf..754122d 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
> @@ -691,9 +691,8 @@ static inline int scsw_tm_is_valid_pno(union scsw *scsw)
> {
> return (scsw->tm.fctl != 0) &&
> (scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND) &&
> - (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
> - ((scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) &&
> - (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED)));
> + (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
> + (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED));
This turns something unreadable into something else which is
unreadable. It's up to Vineeth to decide what to do with this.
However I'd prefer if this would be changed into something readable,
maybe as addon patch, like e.g.:
static inline bool scsw_tm_is_valid_pno(union scsw *scsw)
{
if (scsw->tm.fctl == 0)
return false;
if (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND))
return false;
if (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS))
return false;
if (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED)
return false;
return true;
}
Chances are that the above is wrong... it's just to illustrate ;)
I am a fan of Coccinelle fixes. But, here i think we need to do more
work than just fixing it to
get rid of the warnings. I agree with Heiko. May be we should re-write
this entire function and
make it readable.
Nack.
On 8/23/21 8:07 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:51:59PM -0700, jing yangyang wrote:
>> WARNING !A || A && B is equivalent to !A || B
>>
>> This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
>>
>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: jing yangyang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
>> index a7c3ccf..754122d 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/scsw.h
>> @@ -691,9 +691,8 @@ static inline int scsw_tm_is_valid_pno(union scsw *scsw)
>> {
>> return (scsw->tm.fctl != 0) &&
>> (scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND) &&
>> - (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
>> - ((scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) &&
>> - (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED)));
>> + (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS) ||
>> + (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED));
> This turns something unreadable into something else which is
> unreadable. It's up to Vineeth to decide what to do with this.
>
> However I'd prefer if this would be changed into something readable,
> maybe as addon patch, like e.g.:
>
> static inline bool scsw_tm_is_valid_pno(union scsw *scsw)
> {
> if (scsw->tm.fctl == 0)
> return false;
> if (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_STATUS_PEND))
> return false;
> if (!(scsw->tm.stctl & SCSW_STCTL_INTER_STATUS))
> return false;
> if (scsw->tm.actl & SCSW_ACTL_SUSPENDED)
> return false;
> return true;
> }
>
> Chances are that the above is wrong... it's just to illustrate ;)