On 6/15/2021 7:28 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The continue statement in the for-loop is redundant. Re-work the hw_lock
> check to remove it.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Continue has no effect")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Yep, that logic makes more sense.
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx>
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c
> index 267312fad59a..3eca0e4eab0b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c
> @@ -410,13 +410,11 @@ bool ice_ptp_lock(struct ice_hw *hw)
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_TRIES; i++) {
> hw_lock = rd32(hw, PFTSYN_SEM + (PFTSYN_SEM_BYTES * hw->pf_id));
> hw_lock = hw_lock & PFTSYN_SEM_BUSY_M;
> - if (hw_lock) {
> - /* Somebody is holding the lock */
> - usleep_range(10000, 20000);
> - continue;
> - } else {
> + if (!hw_lock)
> break;
> - }
> +
> + /* Somebody is holding the lock */
> + usleep_range(10000, 20000);
> }
>
> return !hw_lock;
>
