From: Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] crypto: cavium: zip: Remove unnecessary parentheses Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 10:55:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20180328175736.17360-1-rvarsha016@gmail.com> <1522260676.12357.121.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Joe Perches , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" To: Varsha Rao Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 31 Mar 2018, Varsha Rao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Varsha Rao wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 23:27, Varsha Rao wrote: > >> > > This patch fixes the clang warning of extraneous parentheses, with the > >> > > following coccinelle script. > >> > > > >> > > @@ > >> > > identifier i; > >> > > constant c; > >> > > @@ > >> > > ( > >> > > -((i == c)) > >> > > +i == c > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -((i <= c)) > >> > > +i <= c > >> > > >> > Why just the "==" and "<=" cases? > >> > Why not "<", ">" and ">=" too? > >> > > >> > Why not expression instead of constant? > >> > >> Initially I had the other cases too and used expression instead of > >> constant. But the results included only "==" and "<=" cases with > >> constant. Along with one false positive case. > >> > >> --- a/drivers/crypto/cavium/zip/zip_main.c > >> +++ b/drivers/crypto/cavium/zip/zip_main.c > >> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static struct zip_device *zip_alloc_devi > >> */ > >> struct zip_device *zip_get_device(int node) > >> { > >> - if ((node < MAX_ZIP_DEVICES) && (node >= 0)) > >> + if (node < MAX_ZIP_DEVICES && node >= 0) > > > > Why is it a false positive? > > The parentheses around multiple expressions in if statement is not > considered extra, right? < and >= should bind tighter than &&. But perhaps one could fine the original code to be more readable. julia