On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:54:50PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On 2/21/22 22:20, Michael Straube wrote: > > > I'm glad that Pavel noticed this change. This is a risky thing and > > > should have been noted in the commit message. > > > > > > Just from a review stand point it would be best to leave the original > > > behavior. > > > > > > > Do you mean to leave the whole original code including the 5 GHz > > frequencies? Or returning a default value if we have a channel value < 1 > > or > 14? > > > > IMO, your version is much cleaner than previous one. This table walk seems > really unreasonable, since 5 GHz support is really redundant (I saw it in > other thread) > > I'd put just sanity check and return the default value from previous > version. Maybe even wrapped with unlikely() if we sure, that in normal state > we won't hit it ;) Adding likely()/unlikely() annotations hurt readability. Do not do that unless you have benchmark data to prove that it is worth it. (Hint: it is not worth it here). regards, dan carpenter
