[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f6bccd7-a117-fbae-cd1b-26db1d2a958f@engleder-embedded.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 00:34:38 +0100
From: Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@...leder-embedded.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/9] tsnep: Add XDP TX support
On 06.01.23 23:13, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:13:00 +0100 Gerhard Engleder wrote:
>>>> - if (entry->skb) {
>>>> + if (entry->skb || entry->xdpf) {
>>>> entry->properties = length & TSNEP_DESC_LENGTH_MASK;
>>>> entry->properties |= TSNEP_DESC_INTERRUPT_FLAG;
>>>> - if (skb_shinfo(entry->skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS)
>>>> + if (entry->type == TSNEP_TX_TYPE_SKB &&
>>>> + skb_shinfo(entry->skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS)
>>>
>>> Please enclose bitops (& here) hanging around any logical ops (&& here
>>> in their own set of braces ().
>>
>> Will be done.
>
> Dunno if that's strictly required in the kernel coding style.
> Don't we expect a good understanding of operator precedence
> from people reading the code?
checkpatch accepts both and I found no ruling in coding-style.rst.
I also found both styles in Ethernet drivers. checkpatch often
complained about unnecessary braces in my code, so I assumed less
braces are welcome. This fits to that a good understanding of operator
precedence is expected.
Gerhard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists