From: FengWei <feng.wei8@zte.com.cn>

Use min3() macro instead of nesting min() to simplify the return
statement.

Signed-off-by: FengWei <feng.wei8@zte.com.cn>
---
 net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
index 08f3f530f984..31a3b6e4c58d 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
@@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ minstrel_ht_refill_sample_rates(struct minstrel_ht_sta *mi)
 	u32 prob_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_prob_rate);
 	u32 tp_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[0]);
 	u32 tp2_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[1]);
-	u32 fast_rate_dur = min(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);
+	u32 fast_rate_dur = min3(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);
 	u32 slow_rate_dur = max(max(tp_dur, tp2_dur), prob_dur);
 	u16 *rates;
 	int i, j;
-- 
2.25.1

On 15/03/2025 04:12, feng.wei8@zte.com.cn wrote:
> From: FengWei <feng.wei8@zte.com.cn>
> 
> Use min3() macro instead of nesting min() to simplify the return
> statement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: FengWei <feng.wei8@zte.com.cn>
> ---
>  net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
> index 08f3f530f984..31a3b6e4c58d 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
> @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ minstrel_ht_refill_sample_rates(struct minstrel_ht_sta *mi)
>  	u32 prob_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_prob_rate);
>  	u32 tp_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[0]);
>  	u32 tp2_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[1]);
> -	u32 fast_rate_dur = min(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);
> +	u32 fast_rate_dur = min3(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);

This is automation-generated junk code. How does it "simplify the
statement"?

Can ZTE slow down this flood of automation or research experiment on
kernel community?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Mon, 2025-03-17 at 09:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> > +++ b/net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel_ht.c
> > @@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ minstrel_ht_refill_sample_rates(struct minstrel_ht_sta *mi)
> >  	u32 prob_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_prob_rate);
> >  	u32 tp_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[0]);
> >  	u32 tp2_dur = minstrel_get_duration(mi->max_tp_rate[1]);
> > -	u32 fast_rate_dur = min(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);
> > +	u32 fast_rate_dur = min3(tp_dur, tp2_dur, prob_dur);
> 
> This is automation-generated junk code. How does it "simplify the
> statement"?

It's worse. The "minus" code doesn't even exist upstream.

> Can ZTE slow down this flood of automation or research experiment on
> kernel community?

Please.

johannes

Please do not send utter garbage patches. It wastes everyone's time.

If you don't know what you're doing, just stop. There's very very little
value in such patches anyway, so don't send them. First think if it
actually does something useful, and if in doubt, don't.

johannes

I see the following commit：
|https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=ab936836ec09fa23954e8e5785d71a41e5ee8bcb 

I don't think code optimization and unification is "garbage". If so, why did you choose to merge into a commit like "garbage".
I'm just bothered by this aspect when I usually look at the code, so why not be concise.
I would even like to implement `min4/max4` like `dml_min4/dml_max4`. Wouldn't that be more concise code?

As a newcomer, my perspectives may differ from those of the experts here. I apologize if this has caused any inconvenience.
Thanks



Original


From: johannes <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Feng Wei10332721;linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>;
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>;
Date: 2025/03/16 22:01
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: minstrel_ht: Replace nested min() with single min3()

Please do not send utter garbage patches. It wastes everyone's time.
 
If you don't know what you're doing, just stop. There's very very little
value in such patches anyway, so don't send them. First think if it
actually does something useful, and if in doubt, don't.
 
johannes

On 17/03/2025 05:55, feng.wei8@zte.com.cn wrote:
> I see the following commit：
> |https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=ab936836ec09fa23954e8e5785d71a41e5ee8bcb 

I do not see Johannes merged that. Do you understand how Git and kernel
process work?

> 
> I don't think code optimization and unification is "garbage". If so, why did you choose to merge into a commit like "garbage".
> I'm just bothered by this aspect when I usually look at the code, so why not be concise.

No, you just run some static tools, coccinelle or whatever else and
flood us with patches all over the tree, claiming that they improve
anything.

Nothing here was done in terms of choice of improvement but it's pure
automation.

In many places it was already pointed out that your automation is not
even correct.

> I would even like to implement `min4/max4` like `dml_min4/dml_max4`. Wouldn't that be more concise code?
> 
> As a newcomer, my perspectives may differ from those of the experts here. I apologize if this has caused any inconvenience.


Best regards,
Krzysztof