On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:31 AM David Marchand <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 3:19 AM lihuisong (C) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> + if (info->lcore_id != lcore_id) > > >> Suggest: info->lcore_id != lcore_id -> lcore_id != info->lcore_id > > >> Here, info->lcore_id is a target and lcore_id is the variable to be > > >> judged, right? > > > Yeah that looks better. I didn't pay too much attention since this > > > principle is not well respected in the current code base. > > That's not a very good reason. > > It's similar to "ret != 0" and "p != NULL" in DPDK coding style. > > I'll squash this suggestion when applying.
Hum, well, I have some other comments later in this series, so Robin will fix this himself. -- David Marchand
