From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next] rocker: remove rocker parameter from functions that have rocker_port parameter Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:30:57 +0900 Message-ID: <20150528083055.GA30133@vergenet.net> References: <1432783397-12868-1-git-send-email-simon.horman@netronome.com> <20150528061542.GA2302@nanopsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Scott Feldman , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:34487 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753009AbbE1IbE (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 04:31:04 -0400 Received: by pabru16 with SMTP id ru16so18394914pab.1 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 01:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150528061542.GA2302@nanopsycho.orion> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:23:17AM CEST, simon.horman@netronome.com wrote: > >The rocker (switch) of a rocker_port may be trivially obtained from > >the latter it seems cleaner not to pass the former to a function when > >the latter is being passed anyway. > > I don't understand reason for this patch. I like it the way it is I must > say. + you introduce possible multiple dereference in a row in call-chain. My main motivation is that it seems cleaner. I marked it as an RFC as I wasn't sure if there was a particular reason that thins are how they are. I have no objection to leaving things as they are if thats the consensus.