> -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Przemek Kitszel > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 3:04 PM > To: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <[email protected]>; Loktionov, Aleksandr > <[email protected]> > Cc: Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Keller, Jacob E <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v5 3/4] iavf: send MAC change > request > synchronously > > On 4/29/26 14:00, Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez wrote: > > Hello Aleksandr, > > > >> I think continue at the end of the cycle is redundant. > > That continue is intentional; without it, if timeout expires but there > > are still messages in the queue, we give up without processing them. > > The > > Alex is right, > "continue" causes to check the condition clause of while loop, also for > do-while > > > message we're waiting for might be in the queue and not a lot of > > messages stored are expected. > > That continue reduces possible false timeouts (because the expected > > message could be stored in the queue) while keeping the delay minimal. > > The timeout is really just an estimate, and I don't think it needs to > > be very precise. > > with that said, current code is correct > > removing the redundant "if" could be done while applying (if that will be the > only > nitpick left) > > after more thinking: > in theory, not checking the time but processing next message if there were any > pending on the previous message could cause infinite loop (to fix that we > should > stop refreshing "pending" value after the timeout, but only decrementing it - > but I > think that this would be needless complication) > > My Reviewed-by still holds > > > > > Thanks > > > > Best regards > > Jose Ignacio > >
Tested-by: Rafal Romanowski <[email protected]>
