From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 22:43:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20160914204307.GE12195@netboy> References: <20160914130231.3035-1-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914130231.3035-9-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <20160914142503.GF28592@localhost.localdomain> <20160914200845.GB12195@netboy> <33f6f81b-ce41-4eba-c62d-93cdb06daa8f@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33f6f81b-ce41-4eba-c62d-93cdb06daa8f@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Grygorii Strashko Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Mugunthan V N , Sekhar Nori , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, WingMan Kwok List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:43PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > if yes then those changes are correct as from patch#7 point of > view, as from patch#8 because they are separate standalone changes. > In patch patch#7 it reasonable to ball out earlier, while in patch#8 > it required to move forward a bit as I need to know maxsec. And what about the extra blank line? AFAICT, placing the test later in patch #7 is correct logic and has the advantage of not distracting reviews with pointless churn! Thanks, Richard