On 8/9/24 10:22 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> But it might be possible to make it simpler by reducing the amount of nested
> 'if' statements. For example, we could keep the original check as-is adding
> the 'continue' after the row deletion and then get the port and perform port
> checks afterwards without worrying about nb_smb being NULL, i.e.:
>
> if (!nb_smb) {
> sbrec_static_mac_binding_delete(sb_smb);
> continue;
> }
>
> <Get the port, do other checks and delete the row, if failed>
>
> We also may not need to define any extra variables, beside 'op', in this case.
>
> What do you think?
I see. That is simpler.
Like this?:
if (!nb_smb) {
sbrec_static_mac_binding_delete(sb_smb);
+ continue;
+ }
+ struct ovn_port *op = op = ovn_port_find(lr_ports,
nb_smb->logical_port);
+ if (!(op && op->nbrp && op->od && op->od->sb)) {
+ sbrec_static_mac_binding_delete(sb_smb);
}
}
It builds and passes all checks. I can send a v2.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
