Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/9] tsnep: Add XDP TX support

[Gerhard Engleder <gerhard@engleder-embedded.com>]

On 06.01.23 23:13, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:13:00 +0100 Gerhard Engleder wrote:
>>>> -	if (entry->skb) {
>>>> +	if (entry->skb || entry->xdpf) {
>>>>    		entry->properties = length & TSNEP_DESC_LENGTH_MASK;
>>>>    		entry->properties |= TSNEP_DESC_INTERRUPT_FLAG;
>>>> -		if (skb_shinfo(entry->skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS)
>>>> +		if (entry->type == TSNEP_TX_TYPE_SKB &&
>>>> +		    skb_shinfo(entry->skb)->tx_flags & SKBTX_IN_PROGRESS)
>>>
>>> Please enclose bitops (& here) hanging around any logical ops (&& here
>>> in their own set of braces ().
>>
>> Will be done.
> 
> Dunno if that's strictly required in the kernel coding style.
> Don't we expect a good understanding of operator precedence
> from people reading the code?

checkpatch accepts both and I found no ruling in coding-style.rst.
I also found both styles in Ethernet drivers. checkpatch often
complained about unnecessary braces in my code, so I assumed less
braces are welcome. This fits to that a good understanding of operator
precedence is expected.

Gerhard