[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496dba36-1d40-e7d1-1250-a350bc590902@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:57:29 +0100
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
linux-net-drivers@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sfc: use flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()
On 16/04/2024 14:44, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Adopt nfp-style *_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS define.
>
> Change the check for unsupported control flags, to use the new helper
> flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags().
>
> Since the helper was based on sfc, then nothing really changes.
>
> Compile-tested, and compiled objects are identical.
>
> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
Subject line doesn't match the patch (I guess because the helper
got renamed).
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> index 82e8891a619a..5f73f1dea524 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@
> #include "ef100_rep.h"
> #include "efx.h"
>
> +#define SFC_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS \
> + (FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | \
> + FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG)
I'd rather keep the flags in-line, next to where they're actually
used. I.e. we have
if (flags & FRAGMENT)
blah;
if (flags & FIRST_FRAG)
foo;
if (!blah_supported(FRAGMENT | FIRST_FRAG))
return -EEK;
and it's very clear that anyone changing one of those parts also
needs to change the other. Whereas with your #define it's not
immediately obvious to someone reading the code where that set
of supported flags comes from conceptually.
-ed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists