Re: [PATCH 3/5] removing the next_type enum

["Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>]

On 9/15/2026 12:46 PM, Evgeny Sokolov wrote:
> From: Sokolov Evgeny <Evgeny.Sokolov@infotecs.ru>
> 
> ---

This patch is odd.

First of all, the patch headline says it's the third patch of the 
series, but there is no "series" here, it's just a standalone patch. 
Please use appropriate git format-patch/send-email command line 
parameters to send patches with proper threading if this is indeed part 
of a series and not a standalone patch.

Moreover, there's no commit message.

Aside from general commit formatting issues, I'm of two opinions on this 
particular change. Specifically, I think this:


	if (next_type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_END && ...)

actually looks better than this:

	if (((item + 1)->type == RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_END) && ...

because there's way less visual noise. So, I would keep next_type as 
local variable.

However, if the intention of this patch was to get rid of the three 
places where we set next_type, then I agree with that direction: we 
should only be setting it once. Perhaps we could set it before the 
switch statement?

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly