On 1/27/2021 4:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:50:14AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>> +  case NETDEV_GOING_DOWN: {
>>>> +          struct dsa_port *dp, *cpu_dp;
>>>> +          struct dsa_switch_tree *dst;
>>>> +          int err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +          if (!netdev_uses_dsa(dev))
>>>> +                  return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>>> +
>>>> +          cpu_dp = dev->dsa_ptr;
>>>> +          dst = cpu_dp->ds->dst;
>>>> +
>>>> +          list_for_each_entry(dp, &dst->ports, list) {
>>>> +                  if (!dsa_is_user_port(dp->ds, dp->index)) {
>>>
>>> !dsa_is_user_port() ??
>>>
>>> That ! seems odd.
>>
>> Oops, that's something that I refactored at the last minute after I
>> prototyped the idea from:
>>                      if (!dsa_is_user_port(dp->ds, dp->index))
>>                              continue;
>> because it looked uglier that way.
> 
> I was guessing it would be something like that. With that fixed:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>

When you fix it:

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
-- 
Florian

Reply via email to