From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlo...@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:01:34 +0200
>
>
> On 8/8/2024 2:24 PM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>> 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
>
> Okay, good point. I checked that and they are not redundant. If I remove
> them then compiler complains and object code changes so - parenthesis
> stay with us :D
Nice, thanks for checking! It's always better and faster to just check
and make sure.
>
> thanks
Olek
