[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220316130349.kmjonrhsx7upj55h@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:03:49 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Matt Johnston <matt@...econstruct.com.au>,
Cooper Lees <me@...perlees.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 10/15] net: dsa: Validate hardware support
for MST
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:15:18AM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> >> +int dsa_port_mst_enable(struct dsa_port *dp, bool on,
> >> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!on)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (!dsa_port_supports_mst(dp)) {
> >> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Hardware does not support MST");
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > Experimenting a bit... maybe this looks tidier? We make the "if" condition
> > have the same basic structure as the previous "if (br_mst_enabled(br) &&
> > !dsa_port_supports_mst(dp))", albeit transformed using De Morgan's rules.
> >
> > {
> > if (!on || dsa_port_supports_mst(dp))
> > return 0;
> >
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Hardware does not support MST");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
>
> I initially had it like this. It looks tidier, yes - but to me the
> intent is less obvious when reading it. How about:
>
> {
> if (on && !dsa_port_supports_mst(dp)) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Hardware does not support MST");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
Yes, let's go with this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists