On 17-07-24 07:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:35:46AM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com>
@@ -128,6 +129,11 @@ static int tcf_dump_walker(struct tcf_hashinfo *hinfo,
struct sk_buff *skb,
if (index < s_i)
continue;
+ if (jiffy_since &&
+ time_after(jiffy_since,
+ (unsigned long)p->tcfa_tm.lastuse))
You don't need to check jiffy_since==0. Also, nicer ^^ this with a space :)
Assuming that time_after() would work fine for jiffy_since being zero,
but:
wouldnt it be more efficient to just not call time_after() altogether?
Other than this, looks fine.
Ok, please no more changes - I am exhausted ;-> So speak for this
update or send patches afterwards if you dont like something.
cheers,
jamal
