Le Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:56:58 -0700, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:14:37 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:11:41 +0200 Kory Maincent wrote: > [...] > > > > > > 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? Indeed that could work! Thanks! -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
