[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6e256a9-009b-593a-9f06-6f4adb4df688@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:55:43 -0600
From: Ahmed Zaki <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafal Romanowski" <rafal.romanowski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] iavf: refactor VLAN filter states
On 2023-04-05 18:59, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:50:55 -0600 Ahmed Zaki wrote:
>> On 2023-04-05 18:15, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 10:25:21 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:
>>>> + __IAVF_VLAN_INVALID,
>>>> + __IAVF_VLAN_ADD, /* filter needs to be added */
>>>> + __IAVF_VLAN_IS_NEW, /* filter is new, wait for PF answer */
>>>> + __IAVF_VLAN_ACTIVE, /* filter is accepted by PF */
>>>> + __IAVF_VLAN_REMOVE, /* filter needs to be removed */
>>> Why the leading underscores?
>> Just following the convention. iavf_tc_state_t and
>> iavf_cloud_filter_state_t have these underscores. Same for iavf_state_t.
> What is the convention, tho? Differently put what is the thing
> that would be defined with the same names but without the underscores?
Nothing.
>
> My intuition is that we prefix bit numbers with __,
> then the mask (1 << __BIT_NO) does not have a prefix.
>
> But these are not used as bits anywhere, in fact you're going away
> from bits...
Ok, how about sending v2 without these underscores, then send another
patch to net-next fixing the rest of states?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists