21 Apr
2023
21 Apr
'23
9:01 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 08:03:54PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:22:04PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
- /* If link is up, enable MAC Merge right away */
- if (!!(priv->active_offloads & ENETC_F_QBU) &&
!(val & ENETC_MMCSR_LINK_FAIL))val |= ENETC_MMCSR_ME;
- /* If link is up, enable/disable MAC Merge right away */
- if (!(val & ENETC_MMCSR_LINK_FAIL)) {
if (!!(priv->active_offloads & ENETC_F_QBU))nit: The !!() seems unnecessary, I wonder if it can be written in a simpler way as:
if (priv->active_offloads & ENETC_F_QBU)I agree. Normally I omit the double negation in simple statements like this. Here I didn't, because the expression was split into 2 "if" conditions, and I kept the individual terms as-is for some reason.
Since the generated object code is absolutely the same either way, I would not resend just for minor style comments such as this one, if you don't mind. However, I do appreciate the review and I'll pay more attention to this detail in the future.
Thanks. I agree the result should be same. No need to resend because of this.