[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:26:58 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net] net: udp: fix Fast/frag0 UDP GRO
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:29:06 +0000 Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> >>> + sk = static_branch_unlikely(&udp_encap_needed_key) ?
> >>> + udp4_gro_lookup_skb(skb, uh->source, uh->dest) :
> >>> + NULL;
> >
> > Does this indentation pass checkpatch?
>
> Sure, I always check my changes with checkpatch --strict.
>
> > Else, the line limit is no longer strict,a and this only shortens the
> > line, so a single line is fine.
>
> These single lines is about 120 chars, don't find them eye-pleasant.
> But, as with "u32" above, they're pure cosmetics and can be changed.
let me chime in on the perhaps least important aspect of the patch :)
Is there are reason to use a ternary operator here at all?
Isn't this cleaner when written with an if statement?
sk = NULL;
if (static_branch_unlikely(&udp_encap_needed_key))
sk = udp4_gro_lookup_skb(skb, uh->source, uh->dest);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists