On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:31 PM Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 18:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 May 2020 00:31:03 +0100 Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > > My preference would be for
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > > int i;
> > > > u32 off = 0;
> > > >
> > > > for (i = 0; i <
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 18:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2020 00:31:03 +0100 Colin Ian King wrote:
> > > My preference would be for
> > >
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > > u32 off = 0;
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < TG3_SD_NUM_RECS; i++) {
> > > tg3_ape_scratchpad_read(tp, (
On Sat, 9 May 2020 00:31:03 +0100 Colin Ian King wrote:
> > My preference would be for
> >
> > {
> > int i;
> > u32 off = 0;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < TG3_SD_NUM_RECS; i++) {
> > tg3_ape_scratchpad_read(tp, (u32 *)ocir, off, TC3_OCIR_LEN);
> >
> > if (ocir->sign
On 09/05/2020 00:21, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 23:53 +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King
>>
>> Currently the value for 'off' is computed using a multiplication and
>> a couple of statements later off is being incremented by len and
>> this value is never read. Clean
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 23:53 +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> Currently the value for 'off' is computed using a multiplication and
> a couple of statements later off is being incremented by len and
> this value is never read. Clean up the code by removing the
> multiplication a
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:53 PM Colin King wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> Currently the value for 'off' is computed using a multiplication and
> a couple of statements later off is being incremented by len and
> this value is never read. Clean up the code by removing the
> multiplication and
From: Colin Ian King
Currently the value for 'off' is computed using a multiplication and
a couple of statements later off is being incremented by len and
this value is never read. Clean up the code by removing the
multiplication and just increment off by len on each iteration. Also
use len inst
