These patches fix a case where the same expression is tested twice and the
answer is guaranteed to be the same in each case.

--

[ message continues ]

The same expression is tested twice and the result is the same each time.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
 drivers/media/dvb/siano/smscoreapi.c |    3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/dvb/siano/smscoreapi.c b/drivers/media/dvb/siano/smscoreapi.c
index d93468c..70e3e0c 100644
--- a/drivers/media/dvb/siano/smscoreapi.c
+++ b/drivers/media/dvb/siano/smscoreapi.c
@@ -1511,8 +1511,7 @@ int smscore_gpio_set_level(struct smscore_device_t *coredev, u8 PinNum,
 		u32 msgData[3]; /* keep it 3 ! */
 	} *pMsg;
 
-	if ((NewLevel > 1) || (PinNum > MAX_GPIO_PIN_NUMBER) ||
-			(PinNum > MAX_GPIO_PIN_NUMBER))
+	if ((NewLevel > 1) || (PinNum > MAX_GPIO_PIN_NUMBER))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	totalLen = sizeof(struct SmsMsgHdr_ST) +

--

[ message continues ]

The opcodes 0x2e and 0x3e are tested for in the first Group 2 line as well.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
This is a guess as to what the code should be.  Perhaps something else
should have been tested instead.

 arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
index 63c19e2..324aa3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ static bool opcode_is_prefix(uint8_t b)
 		b == 0xf0 || b == 0xf2 || b == 0xf3
 		/* Group 2 */
 		|| b == 0x2e || b == 0x36 || b == 0x3e || b == 0x26
-		|| b == 0x64 || b == 0x65 || b == 0x2e || b == 0x3e
+		|| b == 0x64 || b == 0x65
 		/* Group 3 */
 		|| b == 0x66
 		/* Group 4 */

--

[ message continues ]

The last two items are branch hint prefixes that use same encoding as CS 
and DS segment override prefixes.

Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>


--

[ message continues ]

Commit-ID:  9fbaf49c7f717740002d49eee1bbd03d89d8766a
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/9fbaf49c7f717740002d49eee1bbd03d89d8766a
Author:     Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
AuthorDate: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:41:03 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CommitDate: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:19:28 +0200

x86, kmemcheck: Remove double test

The opcodes 0x2e and 0x3e are tested for in the first Group 2
line as well.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegardno@ifi.uio.no>
LKML-Reference: <1283010066-20935-5-git-send-email-julia@diku.dk>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
index 63c19e2..324aa3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/kmemcheck/opcode.c
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ static bool opcode_is_prefix(uint8_t b)
 		b == 0xf0 || b == 0xf2 || b == 0xf3
 		/* Group 2 */
 		|| b == 0x2e || b == 0x36 || b == 0x3e || b == 0x26
-		|| b == 0x64 || b == 0x65 || b == 0x2e || b == 0x3e
+		|| b == 0x64 || b == 0x65
 		/* Group 3 */
 		|| b == 0x66
 		/* Group 4 */
--

[ message continues ]

Sorry, was a bit late.

Thanks for the patch, review, and picking up :-)


Vegard
--

[ message continues ]

You are welcome :)

	Ingo
--

[ message continues ]

The same expression is tested twice and the result is the same each time.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
 net/wireless/wext-core.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-core.c b/net/wireless/wext-core.c
index 0ef17bc..4038593 100644
--- a/net/wireless/wext-core.c
+++ b/net/wireless/wext-core.c
@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ struct iw_statistics *get_wireless_stats(struct net_device *dev)
 #endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT
-	if (dev->ieee80211_ptr && dev->ieee80211_ptr &&
+	if (dev->ieee80211_ptr &&
 	    dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy &&
 	    dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext &&
 	    dev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy->wext->get_wireless_stats)

--

[ message continues ]

The nic_type field is compared to athr_l2c twice.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
This is a guess as to what the code should be.  Perhaps something else
should have been tested instead.

 drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_hw.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_hw.c b/drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_hw.c
index d8501f0..919080b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/atl1c/atl1c_hw.c
@@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ int atl1c_phy_reset(struct atl1c_hw *hw)
 		atl1c_write_phy_reg(hw, MII_DBG_DATA, 0x929D);
 	}
 	if (hw->nic_type == athr_l1c || hw->nic_type == athr_l2c_b2
-		|| hw->nic_type == athr_l2c || hw->nic_type == athr_l2c) {
+		|| hw->nic_type == athr_l2c) {
 		atl1c_write_phy_reg(hw, MII_DBG_ADDR, 0x29);
 		atl1c_write_phy_reg(hw, MII_DBG_DATA, 0xB6DD);
 	}

--

[ message continues ]

I added the Atheros people to the CC list.  Jie Yang should know.

regards,
dan carpenter

--

[ message continues ]

The patch is pretty obvious. Looks good.

  Luis
--

[ message continues ]

The 1 element of the array is tested twice.  Change the code so that the
remaining 3 element of the array is tested instead of testing the 1 element
a second time.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
This is just as guess as to what the correct code should be.

 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c  |    2 +-
 drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c |    2 +-
 drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c  |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
index aaf9b9d..9318695 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
@@ -2579,7 +2579,7 @@ static inline void update_network(struct ieee80211_network *dst,
 	if(src->wmm_param[0].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
 	   src->wmm_param[1].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
 	   src->wmm_param[2].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
-	   src->wmm_param[1].ac_aci_acm_aifsn) {
+	   src->wmm_param[3].ac_aci_acm_aifsn) {
 	  memcpy(dst->wmm_param, src->wmm_param, WME_AC_PRAM_LEN);
 	}
 	//dst->QoS_Enable = src->QoS_Enable;
diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
index 09a02f7..7230cf5 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192su/ieee80211/ieee80211_rx.c
@@ -2298,7 +2298,7 @@ static inline void update_network(struct ieee80211_network *dst,
 	if(src->wmm_param[0].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
 	   src->wmm_param[1].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
 	   src->wmm_param[2].ac_aci_acm_aifsn|| \
-	   src->wmm_param[1].ac_aci_acm_aifsn) {
+	   src->wmm_param[3].ac_aci_acm_aifsn) {
 	  memcpy(dst->wmm_param, src->wmm_param, WME_AC_PRAM_LEN);
 ...
[ message continues ]

The same expression is tested twice and the result is the same each time.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
This is a guess as to what the code should be.  Perhaps something else
should have been tested instead.

 drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
index 731150d..6c40c99 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void print_regs(struct udc *dev)
 		DBG(dev, "DMA mode       = PPBNDU (packet per buffer "
 			"WITHOUT desc. update)\n");
 		dev_info(&dev->pdev->dev, "DMA mode (%s)\n", "PPBNDU");
-	} else if (use_dma && use_dma_ppb_du && use_dma_ppb_du) {
+	} else if (use_dma && use_dma_ppb_du) {
 		DBG(dev, "DMA mode       = PPBDU (packet per buffer "
 			"WITH desc. update)\n");
 		dev_info(&dev->pdev->dev, "DMA mode (%s)\n", "PPBDU");

--

[ message continues ]

My guess is that "use_dma_ppb" was intended.

regards,
dan carpenter

--

[ message continues ]

The same expression is tested twice and the result is the same each time.
Instead test for use_dma_ppb as in the test above.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
 drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
index 731150d..6c40c99 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/amd5536udc.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void print_regs(struct udc *dev)
 		DBG(dev, "DMA mode       = PPBNDU (packet per buffer "
 			"WITHOUT desc. update)\n");
 		dev_info(&dev->pdev->dev, "DMA mode (%s)\n", "PPBNDU");
-	} else if (use_dma && use_dma_ppb_du && use_dma_ppb_du) {
+	} else if (use_dma && use_dma_ppb && use_dma_ppb_du) {
 		DBG(dev, "DMA mode       = PPBDU (packet per buffer "
 			"WITH desc. update)\n");
 		dev_info(&dev->pdev->dev, "DMA mode (%s)\n", "PPBDU");

--

[ message continues ]

Thanks.  I made this change.

julia
--

[ message continues ]

The current code tests the gpio_vid0 field twice.  Test the gpio_vid1
fields in place of the second gpio_vid0 test.

The sematic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@expression@
expression E;
@@

(
* E
  || ... || E
|
* E
  && ... && E
)
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>

---
This is a guess as to what the code should be.

 drivers/regulator/max8952.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8952.c b/drivers/regulator/max8952.c
index f2af0b1..7bf63f4 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/max8952.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/max8952.c
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static int max8952_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
 	u8 vid = -1, i;
 
 	if (!gpio_is_valid(max8952->pdata->gpio_vid0) ||
-			!gpio_is_valid(max8952->pdata->gpio_vid0)) {
+			!gpio_is_valid(max8952->pdata->gpio_vid1)) {
 		/* DVS not supported */
 		return -EPERM;
 	}

--

[ message continues ]

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
--

[ message continues ]