On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:37:36AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote: > On 11/28/2020 9:08 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > LIST_FOREACH(p, &priv->ports, list) { > > - if (p->clock == clock) { > > - ret = run_pmc_port_properties(priv->node, 1000, > > p->number, > > - &state, ×tamping, > > - iface); > > - if (ret > 0) > > - p->state = normalize_state(state); > > + if (p->clock != clock) { > > + continue; > > + } > > We do a continue now to skip over the clock until we found it. Ok.. Bit odd. Right. All I did was remove the IfOk anti-pattern (along with the extra indentation). > To me, this entire block might have read better as something like: > > LIST_FOREACH(p, &priv->ports, list) { > if (p->clock == clock) { > break > } > } > > /* exit if we failed to find a clock */ > > /* do the run_pmc_port_properties */ Yes, that pattern would make more sense to me, but I've got bigger fish to fry... > None of this is really the fault of this patch, and could easily be left > for a future cleanup/refactor. I believe the patch as written has the > same semantics as the original before the return code cleanup. +1 Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel