[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151216.232008.805617588685597196.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:20:08 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: leedom@...lsio.com
Cc: hariprasad@...lsio.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nirranjan@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] cxgb4: Use mask & shift while returning
vlan_prio
From: Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:40:41 -0800
>
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:07 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
>> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:16:25 +0530
>>
>>> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ struct l2t_data {
>>>
>>> static inline unsigned int vlan_prio(const struct l2t_entry *e)
>>> {
>>> - return e->vlan >> 13;
>>> + return (e->vlan & VLAN_PRIO_MASK) >> VLAN_PRIO_SHIFT;
>>
>> e->vlan is a u16, the vlan priotity is the top 3 bits of the 16-bit
>> value, and finally the right shift will be non-signed.
>>
>> Therefore this change is absolutely not necessary.
>>
>> Please remove this patch from the series and resend.
>
> I assume that you only meant that the masking portion is
> unnecessary. Doing the shift with the symbolic constant
> VLAN_PRIO_SHIFT instead of the literal constant “13” is still a
> reasonable change. The masking was almost certainly from me because
> once one uses the symbolic constants, weren’t not supposed to “know”
> about the internal structure of the operation. Modern compilers are
> of course free to optimize away the mask, etc.
Yes I'm only objecting to the unnecessary mask operation.
--
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