From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:51:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5e: make VXLAN support conditional In-Reply-To: References: <1456521217-2174580-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <2455934.lWxXaHB90g@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 28 February 2016 15:26:53 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c > > index 0d45f35aee72..44fc4bc35ffd 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c > > @@ -2116,6 +2116,9 @@ static netdev_features_t mlx5e_vxlan_features_check(struct mlx5e_priv *priv, > > u16 proto; > > u16 port = 0; > > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MLX5_CORE_EN_VXLAN)) > > + goto out; > > + > > I would rather wrap the whole mlx5e_features_check with the suggested > config flag and disable it in case CONFIG_MLX5_CORE_EN_VXLAN is OFF, > since this function is only needed for when vxlan is supported. Sounds good. I think moving the IS_ENABLED() check into the caller(s) will still result in the same object code, but it makes sense to structure the code for best readability. Arnd