linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list iterator variable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:15:53 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>, Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list
 iterator variable

Hi,

Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> writes:

> To move the list iterator variable into the list_for_each_entry_*()
> macro in the future it should be avoided to use the list iterator
> variable after the loop body.
>
> To *never* use the list iterator variable after the loop it was
> concluded to use a separate iterator variable instead of a
> found boolean [1].
>
> This removes the need to use a found variable and simply checking if
> the variable was set, can determine if the break/goto was hit.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
> ---

Code wise, patch look good.

Just some commit style/meta comments:
 - I think that it would make more sense that these were two separate
 patches, but I haven't been following the fallout of the discussion
 above to know what other folks are doing;
 - Please use '[PATCH net-next]' in the subject prefix of your patch(es)
 when you next propose this (net-next is closed for new submissions for
 now, it should open again in a few days);
  

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius