On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 01:50:36PM +0100, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: > On 2/16/2026 5:58 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:26:12AM +0000, Anatoly Burakov wrote: > > > The macros used were not informative and did not add any value beyond code > > > golf, so remove them and make MAC type checks explicit. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h | 12 ------------ > > > drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h > > > b/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h > > > index 5dbd659941..7dc02a472b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h > > > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h > > > @@ -137,18 +137,6 @@ > > > #define IXGBE_MAX_FDIR_FILTER_NUM (1024 * 32) > > > #define IXGBE_MAX_L2_TN_FILTER_NUM 128 > > > -#define MAC_TYPE_FILTER_SUP_EXT(type) do {\ > > > - if ((type) != ixgbe_mac_82599EB && (type) != ixgbe_mac_X540)\ > > > - return -ENOTSUP;\ > > > -} while (0) > > > - > > > -#define MAC_TYPE_FILTER_SUP(type) do {\ > > > - if ((type) != ixgbe_mac_82599EB && (type) != ixgbe_mac_X540 &&\ > > > - (type) != ixgbe_mac_X550 && (type) != ixgbe_mac_X550EM_x &&\ > > > - (type) != ixgbe_mac_X550EM_a && (type) != ixgbe_mac_E610)\ > > > - return -ENOTSUP;\ > > > -} while (0) > > > - > > > > Ack for removing the former. For the latter, since the list is longer and > > the code is used twice, I'd be tempted to convert to an inline function > > taking in struct hw and returning type bool. WDYT? > > > > I don't want to use a macro/inline function just to save on code, it has to > have some semantic meaning. Do you have any suggestions on what it is that > we'd be checking in these cases? > >From the title of the macro I assumed it was whether mac filters are supported or not? However, if that's not really the case and this is an arbitrary set of MAC types for some particular use case, then yes, agree that it's best to remove the macro completely and inline.
/Bruce
