On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:14:37 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:11:41 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote: > > > +static bool > > > +pse_pi_is_admin_enable_not_applied(struct pse_controller_dev *pcdev, > > > + int id) > > > > the only caller of this function seems to negate the return value: > > > > drivers/net/pse-pd/pse_core.c:369: if > > (!pse_pi_is_admin_enable_not_applied(pcdev, i)) > > > > let's avoid the double negation ? > > I thought it was better for comprehension. > If we inverse the behavior we would have a function name like that: > pse_pi_is_admin_disable_not_detected_or_applied() > > Do you have a better proposition? Would pse_pi_is_admin_enable_pending() work?
