[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e7ccd70-78df-64f8-678f-968ad38eae50@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 21:31:58 +0800
From: Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de" <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
"jesse.brandeburg@...el.com" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] igb: Convert a series of if statements to switch case
Dear David,
Thanks for your reply
Logically the two versions are equivalent, hw->mac.type is defined as
follows:
enum e1000_mac_type {
e1000_undefined = 0,
e1000_82575,
e1000_82576,
e1000_82580,
e1000_i350,
e1000_i354,
e1000_i210,
e1000_i211,
e1000_num_macs /* List is 1-based, so subtract 1 for true
count. */
};
Therefore, hw->mac.type < e1000_82576 has only two cases:
e1000_undefined or e1000_82575.
On 5/12/22 21:14, David Laight wrote:
>> From: Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...inos.cn>
>>
>> Convert a series of if statements that handle different events to a switch
>> case statement to simplify the code.
>>
>> V2: fix patch description and email format.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Linkui Xiao <xiaolinkui@...inos.cn>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
>> index 34b33b21e0dc..4ce0718eeff6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
>> @@ -4588,13 +4588,17 @@ static inline void igb_set_vf_vlan_strip(struct igb_adapter *adapter,
>> struct e1000_hw *hw = &adapter->hw;
>> u32 val, reg;
>>
>> - if (hw->mac.type < e1000_82576)
>> + switch (hw->mac.type) {
>> + case e1000_undefined:
>> + case e1000_82575:
>> return;
>> -
>> - if (hw->mac.type == e1000_i350)
>> + case e1000_i350:
>> reg = E1000_DVMOLR(vfn);
>> - else
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> reg = E1000_VMOLR(vfn);
>> + break;
>> + }
>>
>> val = rd32(reg);
>> if (enable)
>> --
>> 2.17.1
> Are you sure that generates reasonable code?
> The compiler could generate something completely different
> for the two versions.
>
> It isn't even obvious they are equivalent.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists