[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16e3f674-0267-47c1-8825-7f15a379332c@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 17:45:35 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/5] net: stmmac: simplify phylink_suspend()
and phylink_resume() calls
> @@ -7927,13 +7925,9 @@ int stmmac_resume(struct device *dev)
> }
>
> rtnl_lock();
> - if (device_may_wakeup(priv->device) && priv->plat->pmt) {
> - phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
> - } else {
> - phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
> - if (device_may_wakeup(priv->device))
> - phylink_speed_up(priv->phylink);
> - }
> + phylink_resume(priv->phylink);
> + if (device_may_wakeup(priv->device) && !priv->plat->pmt)
> + phylink_speed_up(priv->phylink);
> rtnl_unlock();
>
> rtnl_lock();
Unrelated to this patch, but unlock() followed by lock()? Seems like
some more code which could be cleaned up?
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists