From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e32.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613D2DDF22 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:28:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6JHMghT012480 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:22:42 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.4) with ESMTP id l6JISRWa168824 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:28:27 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l6JISRgU009060 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:28:27 -0600 Message-ID: <469FAD4A.7090402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:28:26 -0500 From: Brian King MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ragner Magalhaes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ibmveth: Implement ethtool hooks to enable/disable checksum offload References: <1184860086366-patch-mail.ibm.com> <200707191548.l6JFmEYM020387@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com> <469F8C80.7070302@indt.org.br> <469FA68F.9070607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <469FAA9F.9010207@indt.org.br> In-Reply-To: <469FAA9F.9010207@indt.org.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, rcjenn@linux.vnet.ibm.com, santil@linux.vnet.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ragner Magalhaes wrote: > ext Brian King wrote: >> Ragner Magalhaes wrote: >>> here also, as above ... >>>> + if (data && (dev->features & NETIF_F_IP_CSUM)) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + if (!data && !(dev->features & NETIF_F_IP_CSUM)) >>>> + return 0; >> This change would make the line > 80 columns, which I prefer to avoid. >> Updated patch attached which addresses the first comment. > I think would not be ugly to make. > > if ((data && (dev->features & NETIF_F_IP_CSUM)) || > (!data && !(dev->features & NETIF_F_IP_CSUM))) > return 0; I find that less readable than what I currently have. -Brian -- Brian King Linux on Power Virtualization IBM Linux Technology Center