From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivien Didelot Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: don't unmask port bitmaps Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:17:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20171023181731.7977-3-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> References: <20171023181731.7977-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , Andrew Lunn , Vivien Didelot To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20171023181731.7977-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org The unapply functions are called on the error path. As for dsa_port_mask, enabled_port_mask and cpu_port_mask won't be used after so there's no need to unmask the corresponding port bit from them. This makes dsa_cpu_port_unapply() and dsa_dsa_port_unapply() identical, which can be factorized later. Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot --- net/dsa/dsa2.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/dsa/dsa2.c b/net/dsa/dsa2.c index 9e8b8aab049d..62485a57dbfc 100644 --- a/net/dsa/dsa2.c +++ b/net/dsa/dsa2.c @@ -260,8 +260,6 @@ static void dsa_cpu_port_unapply(struct dsa_port *port) { devlink_port_unregister(&port->devlink_port); dsa_cpu_dsa_destroy(port); - port->ds->cpu_port_mask &= ~BIT(port->index); - } static int dsa_user_port_apply(struct dsa_port *port) @@ -300,7 +298,6 @@ static void dsa_user_port_unapply(struct dsa_port *port) if (port->slave) { dsa_slave_destroy(port->slave); port->slave = NULL; - port->ds->enabled_port_mask &= ~(1 << port->index); } } @@ -512,7 +509,6 @@ static int dsa_cpu_parse(struct dsa_port *port, u32 index, tag_ops = dsa_resolve_tag_protocol(tag_protocol); if (IS_ERR(tag_ops)) { dev_warn(ds->dev, "No tagger for this switch\n"); - ds->cpu_port_mask &= ~BIT(index); return PTR_ERR(tag_ops); } -- 2.14.2