[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next] ice: Fix implicit cast u32 to u16

[Paul Menzel]

Dear Alexander,


Am 28.02.23 um 16:21 schrieb Alexander Lobakin:
> From: Paul Menzel <pmenzel at molgen.mpg.de>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:01:00 +0100

>> Am 28.02.23 um 09:49 schrieb Kalyan Kodamagula:
>>> From: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik at intel.com>
>>>
>>> Fix implicit cast by changing argument types of two functions to correct
>>> types.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kalyan Kodamagula <kalyan.kodamagula at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c | 4 ++--
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> index d71ed210f9c4..830fa53b5e0a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.c
>>> @@ -701,14 +701,14 @@ struct ice_buf_build *ice_pkg_buf_alloc(struct
>>> ice_hw *hw)
>>>        return bld;
>>>    }
>>>    -static bool ice_is_gtp_u_profile(u16 prof_idx)
>>> +static bool ice_is_gtp_u_profile(u32 prof_idx)
>>>    {
>>>        return (prof_idx >= ICE_PROFID_IPV6_GTPU_TEID &&
>>>            prof_idx <= ICE_PROFID_IPV6_GTPU_IPV6_TCP_INNER) ||
>>>               prof_idx == ICE_PROFID_IPV4_GTPU_TEID;
>>>    }
>>>    -static bool ice_is_gtp_c_profile(u16 prof_idx)
>>> +static bool ice_is_gtp_c_profile(u32 prof_idx)
>>>    {
>>>        switch (prof_idx) {
>>>        case ICE_PROFID_IPV4_GTPC_TEID:
>>
>> Is there a reason to limit the length or could `unsigned int` be used?
> 
> You mean the string length? But what's the point of using `unsigned int`
> if we have shorter and more elegant `u32`, which at the same time
> explicitly states its width? :)
> I've been encouraging lots o' folks to prefer the "shorties" where
> possible (I basically only use {,unsigned} long from the "basic" types)
> and now this :p I'm not saying any opinion is correct or incorrect here,
> since it's a matter of taste mostly I believe, just curious.

If in future architectures, the smallest native size is 64 bit, than 
unnecessarily truncating the length, would create not optimal code. 
Judging from the defined macros, `prof_idx` also does not need to be 32 
bit wide. (But it’s all microoptimization.)


Kind regards,

Paul