Re: [PATCH net-next] sfc: use flow_rule_no_unsupp_control_flags()

[Edward Cree]

On 16/04/2024 14:44, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Adopt nfp-style *_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS define.
> 
> Change the check for unsupported control flags, to use the new helper
> flow_rule_is_supp_control_flags().
> 
> Since the helper was based on sfc, then nothing really changes.
> 
> Compile-tested, and compiled objects are identical.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject line doesn't match the patch (I guess because the helper
 got renamed).

> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> index 82e8891a619a..5f73f1dea524 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@
>  #include "ef100_rep.h"
>  #include "efx.h"
>  
> +#define SFC_FLOWER_SUPPORTED_CTLFLAGS \
> +	(FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | \
> +	 FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG)

I'd rather keep the flags in-line, next to where they're actually
 used.  I.e. we have
    if (flags & FRAGMENT)
        blah;
    if (flags & FIRST_FRAG)
        foo;
    if (!blah_supported(FRAGMENT | FIRST_FRAG))
        return -EEK;
 and it's very clear that anyone changing one of those parts also
 needs to change the other.  Whereas with your #define it's not
 immediately obvious to someone reading the code where that set
 of supported flags comes from conceptually.

-ed