[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387562360.2353.51.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:59:20 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 11/16] i40e: remove chatty log messages
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 17:40 +0000, Williams, Mitch A wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com]
[]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
[]
> > > @@ -2988,21 +2988,11 @@ static int i40e_vsi_control_tx(struct i40e_vsi
> > *vsi, bool enable)
> > > } while (j-- && ((tx_reg >> I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_REQ_SHIFT)
> > > ^ (tx_reg >> I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_SHIFT)) & 1);
> > >
> > > - if (enable) {
> > > - /* is STAT set ? */
> > > - if ((tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)) {
> > > - dev_info(&pf->pdev->dev,
> > > - "Tx %d already enabled\n", i);
> > > + /* Skip if the queue is already in the requested state */
> > > + if (enable && (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> > > continue;
> >
> > This line seems over-indented now.
> >
> > > - }
> > > - } else {
> > > - /* is !STAT set ? */
> > > - if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)) {
> > > - dev_info(&pf->pdev->dev,
> > > - "Tx %d already disabled\n", i);
> > > + if (!enable && !(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
> > > continue;
> >
> > This one too.
[]
> Sergei, if you look at the source instead of the patch, you'll see
> that these are correct. The whole thing is inside a for loop, so it
> should properly be indented two tabs.
I looked at the source.
Both continue statements _are_ overly indented.
4 tabs should be 3.
Also, this code is inconsistent and might be
nicer using the same form:
/* Skip if the queue is already in the requested state */
if (enable && (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
continue;
if (!enable && !(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
continue;
[...]
/* wait for the change to finish */
for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
tx_reg = rd32(hw, I40E_QTX_ENA(pf_q));
if (enable) {
if ((tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
break;
} else {
if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
break;
}
Perhaps the first form should be like the second
if (enable) {
if (tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK)
continue;
} else {
if (!(tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK))
continue;
}
or maybe both should be
bool mask = tx_reg & I40E_QTX_ENA_QENA_STAT_MASK;
if (enable ^ mask)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists