linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] of: introduce for_each_matching_node_and

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121121110908.64bc74cd@skate>
Date:	Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:09:08 +0100
From:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Josh Cartwright <josh.cartwright@...il.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] of: introduce for_each_matching_node_and_match()


On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:06:16 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 November 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> However, this results in iterating over table twice; the second time
> >> inside of_match_node(). The implementation of for_each_matching_node()
> >> already found the match, so this is redundant. Invent new function
> >> of_find_matching_node_and_match() and macro
> >> for_each_matching_node_and_match() to remove the double iteration,
> >> thus transforming the above code to:
> >>
> >>     for_each_matching_node_and_match(np, table, &match)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
> >
> > This look useful, but I wonder if the interface would make more sense if you
> > make the last argument to the macro a normal pointer, rather than a
> > pointer-to-pointer. You can take the reference as part of the macro.
> 
> To me that makes for harder to understand code. It *looks* like an
> argument to a normal function call, but it gets changed by the caller.

Agreed. Too much magic is too much.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/