| Message ID | 20220412105830.3495846-6-jakobkoschel@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Remove use of list iterator after loop body | expand |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:58:17PM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: > We know that "dev > dst->last_switch" in the "else" block. > In other words, that "dev - dst->last_switch" is > 0. > > dsa_port_bridge_num_get(dp) can be 0, but the check > "if (bridge_num + dst->last_switch != dev) continue", rewritten as > "if (bridge_num != dev - dst->last_switch) continue", aka > "if (bridge_num != something which cannot be 0) continue", > makes it redundant to have the extra "if (!bridge_num) continue" logic, > since a bridge_num of zero would have been skipped anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> Isn't this Vladimir's patch? If so, it should be commited as Vladimir as the author, and Vladimir's sign-off should appear before yours. When sending out such patches, there should be a From: line for Vladimir as the first line in the body of the patch email. The same goes for the next mv88e6xxx patch in this series - I think both of these are the patches Vladimir sent in his email: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220408123101.p33jpynhqo67hebe@skbuf Thanks.
> On 12. Apr 2022, at 13:27, Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:58:17PM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: >> We know that "dev > dst->last_switch" in the "else" block. >> In other words, that "dev - dst->last_switch" is > 0. >> >> dsa_port_bridge_num_get(dp) can be 0, but the check >> "if (bridge_num + dst->last_switch != dev) continue", rewritten as >> "if (bridge_num != dev - dst->last_switch) continue", aka >> "if (bridge_num != something which cannot be 0) continue", >> makes it redundant to have the extra "if (!bridge_num) continue" logic, >> since a bridge_num of zero would have been skipped anyway. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > Isn't this Vladimir's patch? > > If so, it should be commited as Vladimir as the author, and Vladimir's > sign-off should appear before yours. When sending out such patches, > there should be a From: line for Vladimir as the first line in the body > of the patch email. yes, you are right. I wasn't sure on how to send those commits, but I guess if I just set the commit author correctly it should be fine. regarding the order: I thought I did it correctly doing bottom up but I confused the order, wasn't on purpose. Sorry about that. I'll resend after verifying all the authors and sign-offs are correct. > > The same goes for the next mv88e6xxx patch in this series - I think > both of these are the patches Vladimir sent in his email: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220408123101.p33jpynhqo67hebe@skbuf > > Thanks. > > -- > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last! Thanks for pointing it out! Jakob
On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 13:37 +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: > > > On 12. Apr 2022, at 13:27, Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:58:17PM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: > > > We know that "dev > dst->last_switch" in the "else" block. > > > In other words, that "dev - dst->last_switch" is > 0. > > > > > > dsa_port_bridge_num_get(dp) can be 0, but the check > > > "if (bridge_num + dst->last_switch != dev) continue", rewritten as > > > "if (bridge_num != dev - dst->last_switch) continue", aka > > > "if (bridge_num != something which cannot be 0) continue", > > > makes it redundant to have the extra "if (!bridge_num) continue" logic, > > > since a bridge_num of zero would have been skipped anyway. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > > > Isn't this Vladimir's patch? > > > > If so, it should be commited as Vladimir as the author, and Vladimir's > > sign-off should appear before yours. When sending out such patches, > > there should be a From: line for Vladimir as the first line in the body > > of the patch email. > > yes, you are right. I wasn't sure on how to send those commits, but > I guess if I just set the commit author correctly it should be fine. > > regarding the order: I thought I did it correctly doing bottom up but > I confused the order, wasn't on purpose. Sorry about that. > > I'll resend after verifying all the authors and sign-offs are correct. whoops, too late... Please, do wait at least 24h before reposting, as pointed out in the documentation: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc2/source/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst#L148 Thanks, Paolo
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c index 64f4fdd02902..b3aa0e5bc842 100644 --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c @@ -1404,9 +1404,6 @@ static u16 mv88e6xxx_port_vlan(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int dev, int port) list_for_each_entry(dp, &dst->ports, list) { unsigned int bridge_num = dsa_port_bridge_num_get(dp); - if (!bridge_num) - continue; - if (bridge_num + dst->last_switch != dev) continue;