Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:03:13 +0200 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 4/9] net: enetc: include MAC Merge / FP registers in register dump |
| |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 07:58:52PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 04:38:00PM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > > + if (hw->port && !!(priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU)) > > > > nit: I think you could make the condition. > > > > if (hw->port && priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU) > > > > which would be consistent with the condition in the next hunk. > > > > > + if (priv->si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU) { > > Maybe, but it generates the exact same object code (tested with > "make drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_ethtool.lst"). > > When I'm debugging, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes > to operator precedence (& vs &&), and so, "A && B & C" doesn't read > particularly well to me, and would be one of my first suspects at > hiding a bug. I do know it would have worked in this case though, > and that modern gcc/clang usually complains about suspicious/ > unintuitive precedence.
Thanks, I guess it's subjective. And I do understand your point regarding & vs &&.
No need to resend because of this (or update the code at all if that is your choice).
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |