RE: [PATCH] wifi：mac80211: Replace the ternary conditional operator with max()

[Ping-Ke Shih]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 9:28 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx>; You Kangren <youkangren@xxxxxxxx>; Johannes Berg
> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; open list:MAC80211
> <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL] <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list
> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: opensource.kernel@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] wifi：mac80211: Replace the ternary conditional operator with max()
> 
> From: Ping-Ke Shih
> > Sent: 28 June 2023 02:49
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: You Kangren <youkangren@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 6:48 PM
> > > To: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet
> > > <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; open
> > > list:MAC80211 <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]
> > <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > open list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: opensource.kernel@xxxxxxxx; youkangren@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [PATCH] wifi：mac80211: Replace the ternary conditional operator with max()
> >
> > The semicolon of "wifi：" is different from others.
> >
> > >
> > > Replace the ternary conditional operator with max() to make the code clean
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: You Kangren <youkangren@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  net/mac80211/tdls.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/tdls.c b/net/mac80211/tdls.c
> > > index a4af3b7675ef..9f8b0842a616 100644
> > > --- a/net/mac80211/tdls.c
> > > +++ b/net/mac80211/tdls.c
> > > @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ ieee80211_tdls_build_mgmt_packet_data(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
> > >         int ret;
> > >         struct ieee80211_link_data *link;
> > >
> > > -       link_id = link_id >= 0 ? link_id : 0;
> > > +       link_id = max(link_id, 0);
> >
> > Original logic means "if link_id < 0, then use default link (0)" instead of
> > "always use link_id larger than or equal to 0". So, I think max(link_id, 0) could
> > cause misunderstanding.
> 
> The clearest is probably:
>         if (link_id < 0)
>                 link_id = 0;
> 
> The compiler could easily generate the same code (compare and conditional
> move).
> 

They would be the same, but personally I prefer original single one line statement
that is clear to me.