On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:56:03PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 11:40:00AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 21:27:58 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > + ops = ethtool_phy_ops;
> > > + if (!ops || !ops->start_cable_test) {
> >
> > nit: don't think member-by-member checking is necessary. We don't
> > expect there to be any alternative versions of the ops, right?
>
> I would not like to see anything else registering an ops. So i think
> taking an Opps would be a good indication somebody is doing something
> wrong and needs fixing.
>
> > We could even risk a direct call:
> >
> > #if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PHYLIB)
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > return __do_x();
> > }
> > #else
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > if (!ops)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > return ops->do_x();
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > But that's perhaps doing too much...
>
> I would say it is too far. Two ways of doing the same thing requires
> twice as much testing. And these are not hot paths where we want to
> eliminate as many instructions and trampolines as possible.
Agreed, it seems a bit over the top.
Michal
