Regarding the code style, should I resend patch or this can be fixed when the patch gets applied?
regards, Vladislav Odintsov > On 5 Apr 2022, at 23:03, Mark Michelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > The subject claims this is patch 1/2, but I don't see patch 2/2 on patchwork > or on the mailing list. > > Provisionally, I'm acking this patch > > Acked-by: Mark Michelson <[email protected]> > > but if there's a part 2, I'd prefer that it gets reviewed before this gets > merged. > > Also, I have one minor thing below. > >> On 4/1/22 04:16, Vladislav Odintsov wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Odintsov <[email protected]> >> --- >> controller-vtep/binding.c | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> diff --git a/controller-vtep/binding.c b/controller-vtep/binding.c >> index 01d5a16d2..7c7bea90a 100644 >> --- a/controller-vtep/binding.c >> +++ b/controller-vtep/binding.c >> @@ -109,12 +109,11 @@ update_pb_chassis(const struct sbrec_port_binding >> *port_binding_rec, >> port_binding_rec->chassis->name, >> chassis_rec->name); >> } >> - >> sbrec_port_binding_set_chassis(port_binding_rec, chassis_rec); >> - if (port_binding_rec->n_up) { >> - bool up = true; >> - sbrec_port_binding_set_up(port_binding_rec, &up, 1); >> - } >> + } >> + else if (port_binding_rec->n_up) { > > This is a coding guidelines violation. The else should be on the same line as > the closing curly brace: > > } else if (port_binding_rec->n_up) { > > This is minor enough not to prevent me from acking the patch. But this should > be fixed before merging. >> + bool up = true; >> + sbrec_port_binding_set_up(port_binding_rec, &up, 1); >> } >> } >> > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
