[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <073f1737-3990-1a69-fc31-ed86c8fd64bd@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:18:12 -0800
From: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/8] sunvnet: straighten up message event
handling logic
On 2/13/2017 11:06 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 10:57 -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> The use of gotos for handling the incoming events made this code
>> harder to read and support than it should be. This patch straightens
>> out and clears up the logic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c | 94 ++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sun/sunvnet_common.c
> []
>> @@ -738,41 +738,37 @@ static int vnet_event_napi(struct vnet_port *port, int budget)
> []
>> + /* we don't expect any other bits */
>> + BUG_ON(port->rx_event & ~(LDC_EVENT_DATA_READY |
>> + LDC_EVENT_RESET |
>> + LDC_EVENT_UP));
>
> Is it really necessary to use BUG_ON here?
>
I'm carrying this from the original code because we want to know asap if
we have a low level protocol issue. It should never happen in the
field, but we want to notice it as soon as we can when doing development
and testing. In this patch I've simply made it more obvious and up
front that we're doing this test rather than having it buried in the
logic a few lines further down.
sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists