> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lobakin, Aleksander <aleksander.loba...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 5:25 AM
> To: Polchlopek, Mateusz <mateusz.polchlo...@intel.com>
> Cc: intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org; net...@vger.kernel.org; Keller, Jacob E
> <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; Drewek, Wojciech <wojciech.dre...@intel.com>; Sai
> Krishna <saikrish...@marvell.com>; Simon Horman <ho...@kernel.org>; Zaki,
> Ahmed <ahmed.z...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v8 06/14] iavf: add initial
> framework
> for registering PTP clock
>
> From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlo...@intel.com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 13:04:29 +0200
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/30/2024 3:40 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> >> From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlo...@intel.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:15:01 -0400
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +bool iavf_ptp_cap_supported(struct iavf_adapter *adapter, u32 cap)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (!PTP_ALLOWED(adapter))
> >>> + return false;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Only return true if every bit in cap is set in hw_caps.caps */
> >>> + return (adapter->ptp.hw_caps.caps & cap) == cap;
> >>
> >> Aren't these parenthesis redundant?
> >>
> >
> > I think they are not. They wrap bit operation and also I checked it
> > with checkpatch script and it doesn't complain about reduntant
> > parenthesis.
>
> If the object code doesn't change when compiling without them, there are
> no compiler complains etc, then they are :D checkpatch doesn't always
> catch things, but I don't remember whether the compiler won't complain
> or change the object code / logic. Could you please check?
>
> Thanks,
> Olek
They may be technically redundant in that the parenthesis don't matter.. but
sometimes they can help code legibility by making it more obvious to a human
reviewer who isn't immediately going to think like a compiler and realize that
& is not && for example...
