Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAACQVJo8zB2H6AtQZEVK-nfg8j0f9oVPrBSMjq+CKoQ+xeVrUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180725111459.10800-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <CAACQVJo8zB2H6AtQZEVK-nfg8j0f9oVPrBSMjq+CKoQ+xeVrUA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:15:57 +0530
Message-ID: <CAACQVJqDrVePOVrM3bOnxqUgxbcirDqhStZ3SJW2OBrNYv3d7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: combine 'else if' and 'else' into
 single branche
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "michael.chan@broadcom.com" <michael.chan@broadcom.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Vasundhara Volam
<vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:44 PM, YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> The else-if branch and else branch set mac_ok to true similarly,
>> so combine the two into single else branch.
>>
>> Aslo add comments to explain the two conditions, which
>> from Michael Chan and Vasundhara Volam.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c | 8 ++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> index a649108..f560845 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
>> @@ -956,9 +956,13 @@ static int bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac(struct bnxt *bp, struct bnxt_vf_info *vf)
>>         } else if (is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr)) {
>>                 if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr, vf->vf_mac_addr))
>>                         mac_ok = true;
>> -       } else if (bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10202) {
>> -               mac_ok = true;
>>         } else {
>> +               /* There are two cases:
>> +                * 1.If firmware spec < 0x10202,VF MAC address is not forwarded
>> +                *   to the PF and so it doesn't have to match
>> +                * 2.Allow VF to modify it's own MAC when PF has not assigned a
>> +                *   valid MAC address and firmware spec >= 0x10202
>> +                */
> No, this is not correct either. You are not covering both conditions.
> else part with cover if (!is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr))
> before.
My apologies, I was thinking one more condition was required.
Patch seems fine.
>>                 mac_ok = true;
>>         }
>>         if (mac_ok)
>> --
>> 2.7.0
>>
>>