On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:37:36AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On 11/28/2020 9:08 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > LIST_FOREACH(p, &priv->ports, list) {
> > - if (p->clock == clock) {
> > - ret = run_pmc_port_properties(priv->node, 1000,
> > p->number,
> > - &state, ×tamping,
> > - iface);
> > - if (ret > 0)
> > - p->state = normalize_state(state);
> > + if (p->clock != clock) {
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> We do a continue now to skip over the clock until we found it. Ok.. Bit odd.
Right. All I did was remove the IfOk anti-pattern (along with the
extra indentation).
> To me, this entire block might have read better as something like:
>
> LIST_FOREACH(p, &priv->ports, list) {
> if (p->clock == clock) {
> break
> }
> }
>
> /* exit if we failed to find a clock */
>
> /* do the run_pmc_port_properties */
Yes, that pattern would make more sense to me, but I've got bigger
fish to fry...
> None of this is really the fault of this patch, and could easily be left
> for a future cleanup/refactor. I believe the patch as written has the
> same semantics as the original before the return code cleanup.
+1
Thanks,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
