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.
