On 15/03/2025 04:12, feng.wei8@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: FengWei <feng.wei8@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Use min3() macro instead of nesting min() to simplify the return > statement. > > Signed-off-by: FengWei <feng.wei8@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c > index 08f3f530f984..31a3b6e4c58d 100644 > --- a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c > +++ b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c > @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ minstrel_ht_refill_sample_rates(struct minstrel_ht_sta *mi) > u32 prob_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_prob_rate); > u32 tp_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[0]); > u32 tp2_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[1]); > - u32 fast_rate_dur = min(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur); > + u32 fast_rate_dur = min3(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur); This is automation-generated junk code. How does it "simplify the statement"? Can ZTE slow down this flood of automation or research experiment on kernel community? Best regards, Krzysztof
