Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <2b8fb8823fe73f28ef77bbdd78c9c8b2105e3077.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/qeth: remove useless if/else
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     xiakaixu1987@gmail.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@de.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
Date:   Sun, 08 Nov 2020 12:58:55 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1604817287-11258-1-git-send-email-kaixuxia@tencent.com>
References: <1604817287-11258-1-git-send-email-kaixuxia@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 14:34 +0800, xiakaixu1987@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@tencent.com>
> 
> Fix the following coccinelle report:
> 
> ./drivers/s390/net/qeth_l3_main.c:107:2-4: WARNING: possible condition with no effect (if == else)
> 
> Both branches are the same, so remove them.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/net/qeth_l3_main.c b/drivers/s390/net/qeth_l3_main.c
[]
> @@ -104,10 +104,7 @@ static bool qeth_l3_is_addr_covered_by_ipato(struct qeth_card *card,
> ?		qeth_l3_convert_addr_to_bits(ipatoe->addr, ipatoe_bits,
> ?					  (ipatoe->proto == QETH_PROT_IPV4) ?
> ?					  4 : 16);
> -		if (addr->proto == QETH_PROT_IPV4)
> -			rc = !memcmp(addr_bits, ipatoe_bits, ipatoe->mask_bits);
> -		else
> -			rc = !memcmp(addr_bits, ipatoe_bits, ipatoe->mask_bits);
> +		rc = !memcmp(addr_bits, ipatoe_bits, ipatoe->mask_bits);

It's not always best to remove one branch.

Is this a copy/paste defect or is it useless?
Do you know which?
If you do, you should state this in the commit message.