On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 08:03:54PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. I agree the result should be same.
No need to resend because of this.
