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

[Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen]

Hi Ed,

On 4/16/24 1:57 PM, Edward Cree wrote:
> 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).

Correct, through I had fixed it everywhere. Apparently I missed one.


> > ---
> >   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.

Ok, I liked the NFP-style #define, but will drop trying to expand that.

pw-bot: changes-requested

--
Best regards
Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Network Engineer
Fiberby - AS42541