[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PH0PR18MB47343DD7C5AE37CAB01C7CE2C784A@PH0PR18MB4734.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:22:11 +0000
From: Shinas Rasheed <srasheed@...vell.com>
To: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Haseeb Gani
<hgani@...vell.com>, Vimlesh Kumar <vimleshk@...vell.com>,
"egallen@...hat.com" <egallen@...hat.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com"
<pabeni@...hat.com>,
"horms@...nel.org" <horms@...nel.org>,
"kuba@...nel.org"
<kuba@...nel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"wizhao@...hat.com" <wizhao@...hat.com>,
"konguyen@...hat.com"
<konguyen@...hat.com>,
Veerasenareddy Burru <vburru@...vell.com>,
Sathesh B
Edara <sedara@...vell.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Abhijit
Ayarekar <aayarekar@...vell.com>,
Satananda Burla <sburla@...vell.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net v1] octeon_ep: explicitly test for firmware
ready value
> I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that this:
> return (status == FW_STATUS_READY) ? true : false;
> is equivalent to:
> return status == FW_STATUS_READY;
Oh got it! Thanks for the catch, will correct and send it now.
Shinas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists