diff mbox series

[net-next] net: mptcp: clean up harmless false expressions

Message ID 20211208024732.142541-6-sakiwit@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Awaiting Upstream
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series [net-next] net: mptcp: clean up harmless false expressions | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Single patches do not need cover letters
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 4 this patch: 4
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 6 of 6 maintainers
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 20 this patch: 20
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 6 this patch: 6
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 16 lines checked
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0

Commit Message

Jεan Sacren Dec. 8, 2021, 7:20 a.m. UTC 
From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>

entry->addr.id is u8 with a range from 0 to 255 and MAX_ADDR_ID is 255.
We should drop both false expressions of (entry->addr.id > MAX_ADDR_ID).

We should also remove the obsolete parentheses in the first if branch.

Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
---
 net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Matthieu Baerts Dec. 8, 2021, 10:17 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Jean,

On 08/12/2021 08:20, Jεan Sacren wrote:
> From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
> 
> entry->addr.id is u8 with a range from 0 to 255 and MAX_ADDR_ID is 255.
> We should drop both false expressions of (entry->addr.id > MAX_ADDR_ID).

Good catch!

I wonder if we should not define MAX_ADDR_ID to UINT8_MAX then, ideally
with an extra comment saying it is linked to mptcp_addr_info's id field.

It would make it less like: by "coincidence", addr.id has a max value of
255 which is the same as MAX_ADDR_ID. WDYT?

If you are OK with the suggestion, please send this v2 to MPTCP's ML
only so we can validate and apply it in our tree. Then we will take care
of sending it to Netdev ML.

Cheers,
Matt
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
index 4ff8d55cbe82..233d4002c634 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
@@ -822,14 +822,13 @@  static int mptcp_pm_nl_append_new_local_addr(struct pm_nl_pernet *pernet,
 		entry->addr.id = find_next_zero_bit(pernet->id_bitmap,
 						    MAX_ADDR_ID + 1,
 						    pernet->next_id);
-		if ((!entry->addr.id || entry->addr.id > MAX_ADDR_ID) &&
-		    pernet->next_id != 1) {
+		if (!entry->addr.id && pernet->next_id != 1) {
 			pernet->next_id = 1;
 			goto find_next;
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (!entry->addr.id || entry->addr.id > MAX_ADDR_ID)
+	if (!entry->addr.id)
 		goto out;
 
 	__set_bit(entry->addr.id, pernet->id_bitmap);