From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk ([77.235.48.147]:51541 "EHLO mail2.tohojo.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751606AbcIAJU4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 05:20:56 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Johannes Berg Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mac80211: Move reorder-sensitive TX handlers to after TXQ dequeue. References: <20160824162015.29933-1-toke@toke.dk> <20160830131548.6014-1-toke@toke.dk> <1472677599.5470.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87inug81vo.fsf@toke.dk> <1472718860.4249.0.camel@sipsolutions.net> <8737lk816p.fsf@toke.dk> <1472720848.9608.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:20:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1472720848.9608.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:07:28 +0200") Message-ID: <8760qgugb0.fsf@toke.dk> (sfid-20160901_112100_312047_84C92E3B) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Johannes Berg writes: >> > They have three possible values ... :) >> >> Ah, no, not the handlers themselves. Meant the invoke_tx_handlers() >> function (or all three of them after my patch; hence the plural). To >> avoid the "0 means true" confusion you alluded to :) >> > > Ah. Actually, even I got confused and thought the return value *was* > the same as the handler. > > I think it doesn't matter to be tricky, gcc is probably going to (have > to) generate exactly the same code like when you explicitly put an if > statement in there, it seems? Yeah, was going to do that anyway. But since I'm touching the code anyway, this might be an opportunity to avoid constructs like this: if (!invoke_tx_handlers(tx)) /* continue sending the packet */ Most other succeed/fail functions seem to be of type bool, so it would help consistency as well. Unless there is some particular reason why this function happens to be using 0 to indicate success? -Toke