[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v5 3/4] iavf: send MAC change request synchronously

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 4/29/26 14:00, Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez wrote:
> Hello Aleksandr,
> 
>> I think continue at the end of the cycle is redundant.
> That continue is intentional; without it, if timeout expires but there
> are still messages in the queue, we give up without processing them. The

Alex is right,
"continue" causes to check the condition clause of while loop, also for
do-while

> message we're waiting for might be in the queue and not a lot of messages
> stored are expected.
> That continue reduces possible false timeouts (because the expected message
> could be stored in the queue) while keeping the delay minimal.
> The timeout is really just an estimate, and I don't think it needs
> to be very precise.

with that said, current code is correct

removing the redundant "if" could be done while applying
(if that will be the only nitpick left)

after more thinking:
in theory, not checking the time but processing next message if there
were any pending on the previous message could cause infinite loop
(to fix that we should stop refreshing "pending" value after the
timeout, but only decrementing it - but I think that this would be
needless complication)

My Reviewed-by still holds

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Best regards
> Jose Ignacio
>