On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 03:40:30PM +0800, Hongbo Li wrote: > Let's use min()/max() to simplify the code and fix the > Coccinelle/coccicheck warning reported by minmax.cocci. > > Signed-off-by: Hongbo Li <lihongbo22@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/dccp/ackvec.c | 2 +- > net/dccp/dccp.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/dccp/ackvec.c b/net/dccp/ackvec.c > index 1cba001bb4c8..faadd0190107 100644 > --- a/net/dccp/ackvec.c > +++ b/net/dccp/ackvec.c > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ void dccp_ackvec_clear_state(struct dccp_ackvec *av, const u64 ackno) > * Deal with overlapping Ack Vectors: don't subtract more than the > * number of packets between tail_ackno and ack_ackno. > */ > - eff_runlen = delta < avr->avr_ack_runlen ? delta : avr->avr_ack_runlen; > + eff_runlen = min(delta, avr->avr_ack_runlen); delta is s64, but known to be non-negative avr->avr_ack_runlen is u8 I _think_ this is a candidate for umin(). > > runlen_now = dccp_ackvec_runlen(av->av_buf + avr->avr_ack_ptr); > /* > diff --git a/net/dccp/dccp.h b/net/dccp/dccp.h > index 1f748ed1279d..872d17fb85b5 100644 > --- a/net/dccp/dccp.h > +++ b/net/dccp/dccp.h > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static inline u64 dccp_loss_count(const u64 s1, const u64 s2, const u64 ndp) > WARN_ON(delta < 0); > delta -= ndp + 1; > > - return delta > 0 ? delta : 0; > + return max(delta, 0); > } As per my comment on 2/8 [*], I think you should drop this hunk. [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240828135310.GC1368797@xxxxxxxxxx/
