Re: [very-RFC 5/8] Add TSN machinery to drive the traffic from a shim over the network

[Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1305 bytes --]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-06-12 at 00:22 +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > From: Henrik Austad <haustad@cisco.com>
> > 
> > In short summary:
> > 
> > * tsn_core.c is the main driver of tsn, all new links go through
> >   here and all data to/form the shims are handled here
> >   core also manages the shim-interface.
> []
> > diff --git a/net/tsn/tsn_configfs.c b/net/tsn/tsn_configfs.c
> []
> > +static inline struct tsn_link *to_tsn_link(struct config_item *item)
> > +{
> > +	/* this line causes checkpatch to WARN. making checkpatch happy,
> > +	 * makes code messy..
> > +	 */
> > +	return item ? container_of(to_config_group(item), struct tsn_link, group) : NULL;
> > +}
> 
> How about
> 
> static inline struct tsn_link *to_tsn_link(struct config_item *item)
> {
> 	if (!item)
> 		return NULL;
> 	return container_of(to_config_group(item), struct tsn_link, group);
> }

Yes, I mulled over this for a while, but I got the impression that the 
ternary-approach was the way used in configfs, and I tried staying in line 
with that in tsn_configfs.

If you see other parts of the TSN-code, I tend to use the if (!item) ... 
approach. So, I don't have any technical preferences either way really

-- 
Henrik Austad

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]