From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932244AbcHIMIx (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:08:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:35617 "EHLO mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752054AbcHIMIu (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:08:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: don't check slave num in runtime To: Grygorii Strashko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, mugunthanvnm@ti.com References: <1470480524-6851-1-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> <1470480524-6851-6-git-send-email-ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dlide@ti.com From: Ivan Khoronzhuk Message-ID: <27ec9c9d-a0f4-ebeb-0d59-6f0e4ca5eead@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:08:38 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09.08.16 14:34, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 08/06/2016 01:48 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote: >> No need to check const slave num in runtime for every packet, >> and ndev for slaves w/o ndev is anyway NULL. So remove redundant >> check. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c >> index 70a9570..19aa4bb 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c >> @@ -498,8 +498,7 @@ static const struct cpsw_stats cpsw_gstrings_stats[] = { >> (func)(slave++, ##arg); \ >> } while (0) >> #define cpsw_get_slave_ndev(priv, __slave_no__) \ >> - ((__slave_no__ < priv->data.slaves) ? \ >> - priv->slaves[__slave_no__].ndev : NULL) >> + priv->slaves[__slave_no__].ndev > > So after this change it will be > #define cpsw_get_slave_ndev(priv, __slave_no__) priv->slaves[__slave_no__].ndev > > Can we just drop cpsw_get_slave_ndev() macro? Sure. Will drop it in v3. > >> #define cpsw_get_slave_priv(priv, __slave_no__) \ >> (((__slave_no__ < priv->data.slaves) && \ >> (priv->slaves[__slave_no__].ndev)) ? \ >> > > -- Regards, Ivan Khoronzhuk