On 12.12.18 14:21, Robin van der Gracht wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:07:53 +0100
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j1939_xtp_rx_rts() is called only in cases:
- J1939_ETP_CMD_RTS, extd == 1
- J1939_TP_CMD_RTS, extd == 0
- J1939_TP_CMD_BAM, extd == 0
it means, this test is:
if (J1939_ETP_CMD_RTS || !J1939_TP_CMD_BAM)
or (J1939_ETP_CMD_RTS || J1939_TP_CMD_RTS)
it is enough to test !J1939_TP_CMD_BAM
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/can/j1939/transport.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/can/j1939/transport.c b/net/can/j1939/transport.c
index 2ccb1f448d91..7652e129c804 100644
--- a/net/can/j1939/transport.c
+++ b/net/can/j1939/transport.c
@@ -1099,10 +1099,9 @@ static void j1939_xtp_rx_rts(struct j1939_priv *priv, struct sk_buff *skb,
j1939_tp_set_rxtimeout(session, 1250);
- if (j1939_tp_im_receiver(session->skb)) {
- if (extd || dat[0] != J1939_TP_CMD_BAM)
- j1939_tp_schedule_txtimer(session, 0);
- }
+ if ((dat[0] != J1939_TP_CMD_BAM) &&
+ j1939_tp_im_receiver(session->skb))
+ j1939_tp_schedule_txtimer(session, 0);
Why not use a single line conditional if it fits the 80 char cap?
ACK, but this place is refactored by other patches which I'll send today
or tomorrow. So, I assume we can ignore it in this patch.
