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.
