linux-kernel - Re: [v2] Input: iqs269a - Use scope-based resource management in iqs269_parse

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]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:48:58 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
 Jeff LaBundy <jeff@...undy.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@...libre.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
 ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@....com.cn>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [v2] Input: iqs269a - Use scope-based resource management in
 iqs269_parse_chan()

> The extra curly braces are absolutely not needed. The for loop's body
> already defines scope, __cleanup()s should be called at the end of the body.

I present an other development opinion here.
I got the impression that the required scope should be smaller for
the adjusted local variable “ev_node” (according to the previous function implementation).

Otherwise:
How do you think about to move any source code part from the loop
into a separate function?

Regards,
Markus