diff mbox series

[net-next,v2,2/2] net: qed_dev: fix redundant check of rc and against -EINVAL

Message ID e7289c4e6a57f9a98a8f3fac1d5c7c181cbe8319.1634847661.git.sakiwit@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series Small fixes for redundant checks | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net-next
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 5 of 5 maintainers
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: line length of 85 exceeds 80 columns
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files

Commit Message

Jεan Sacren Oct. 22, 2021, 3:37 a.m. UTC 
From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>

We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to
avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.

We should also remove the check of !rc in this expression since it is
always true:

	(!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted)

Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
---
v2:
(1) Fix missing else branch. I'm very sorry.
(2) Add text for !rc removal in the changelog.
(3) Put two lines of qed_mcp_resc_unlock() call into one.
    Thank you, Mr. Horman!
 drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 31 +++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski Oct. 22, 2021, 9:47 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:37:41 -0600 Jεan Sacren wrote:
> From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
> 
> We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to
> avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.
> 
> We should also remove the check of !rc in this expression since it is
> always true:
> 
> 	(!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>

The code seems to be written like this on purpose. You're adding
indentation levels, and making the structure less readable IMO.

If you want to avoid checking rc / !rc multiple times you can just
code it as:

	if (rc == -EINVAL)
		...
	else if (rc)
		...
	else if (!granted)
		...
	else
		...

I'm not sure I see the point of the re-factoring.

> (1) Fix missing else branch. I'm very sorry.
> (2) Add text for !rc removal in the changelog.
> (3) Put two lines of qed_mcp_resc_unlock() call into one.
>     Thank you, Mr. Horman!
>  drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 31 +++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> index 18f3bf7c4dfe..4ae9867b2535 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
> @@ -3987,26 +3987,29 @@ static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
>  				       QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
>  
>  	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
> -	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
> -		return rc;
> -	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
> +	if (rc) {
> +		if (rc != -EINVAL)
> +			return rc;
>  		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
>  			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
> -	} else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
> -		DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
> -			  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
> -		return -EBUSY;
>  	} else {
> -		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
> -		if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
> +		if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
>  			DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
> -				  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
> -			goto unlock_and_exit;
> -		} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
> +				  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +		}
> +
> +		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
> +		if (rc) {
> +			if (rc != -EINVAL) {
> +				DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
> +					  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
> +				goto unlock_and_exit;
> +			}
> +
>  			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
>  				"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
> -			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
> -						 &resc_unlock_params);
> +			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_unlock_params);
>  			if (rc)
>  				DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
>  					"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
Jεan Sacren Oct. 23, 2021, 9:26 a.m. UTC | #2 
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 14:47:20 -0700
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:37:41 -0600 Jεan Sacren wrote:
> > From: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
> > 
> > We should first check rc alone and then check it against -EINVAL to
> > avoid repeating the same operation multiple times.
> > 
> > We should also remove the check of !rc in this expression since it is
> > always true:
> > 
> > 	(!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Sacren <sakiwit@gmail.com>
> 
> The code seems to be written like this on purpose. You're adding
> indentation levels, and making the structure less readable IMO.
> 
> If you want to avoid checking rc / !rc multiple times you can just
> code it as:
> 
> 	if (rc == -EINVAL)
> 		...
> 	else if (rc)
> 		...
> 	else if (!granted)
> 		...
> 	else
> 		...
> 
> I'm not sure I see the point of the re-factoring.

Agreed.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
index 18f3bf7c4dfe..4ae9867b2535 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
@@ -3987,26 +3987,29 @@  static int qed_hw_get_resc(struct qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, struct qed_ptt *p_ptt)
 				       QED_RESC_LOCK_RESC_ALLOC, false);
 
 	rc = qed_mcp_resc_lock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_lock_params);
-	if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
-		return rc;
-	} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+	if (rc) {
+		if (rc != -EINVAL)
+			return rc;
 		DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
 			"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since the resource lock is not supported by the MFW\n");
-	} else if (!rc && !resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
-		DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
-			  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
-		return -EBUSY;
 	} else {
-		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
-		if (rc && rc != -EINVAL) {
+		if (!resc_lock_params.b_granted) {
 			DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
-				  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
-			goto unlock_and_exit;
-		} else if (rc == -EINVAL) {
+				  "Failed to acquire the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");
+			return -EBUSY;
+		}
+
+		rc = qed_hw_set_soft_resc_size(p_hwfn, p_ptt);
+		if (rc) {
+			if (rc != -EINVAL) {
+				DP_NOTICE(p_hwfn,
+					  "Failed to set the max values of the soft resources\n");
+				goto unlock_and_exit;
+			}
+
 			DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
 				"Skip the max values setting of the soft resources since it is not supported by the MFW\n");
-			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt,
-						 &resc_unlock_params);
+			rc = qed_mcp_resc_unlock(p_hwfn, p_ptt, &resc_unlock_params);
 			if (rc)
 				DP_INFO(p_hwfn,
 					"Failed to release the resource lock for the resource allocation commands\n");