Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:27:03PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >On 17-07-24 07:34 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:35:46AM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: >> > From: Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> > >> >> > @@ -128,6 +129,11 @@ static int tcf_dump_walker(struct tcf_hashinfo >> > *hinfo, struct sk_buff *skb, >> > if (index < s_i) >> > continue; >> > >> > + if (jiffy_since && >> > + time_after(jiffy_since, >> > + (unsigned long)p->tcfa_tm.lastuse)) >> >> You don't need to check jiffy_since==0. Also, nicer ^^ this with a space :) >> > >Assuming that time_after() would work fine for jiffy_since being zero, >but: >wouldnt it be more efficient to just not call time_after() altogether?
time_after is pretty trivial. But your call. > >> Other than this, looks fine. > >Ok, please no more changes - I am exhausted ;-> So speak for this >update or send patches afterwards if you dont like something. > >cheers, >jamal >
