linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] device property: introduce fwnode_for_each_child_node

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: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:03:09 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco@...fvision.net>
Cc: Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device property: introduce
 fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped()

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 07:58:26PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> On 5/2/24 17:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:55:40PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:

..

> >> This macro has been tested with a patch series that has not been
> >> applied yet and is under discussion in input [1], which makes use of the
> >> non-scoped version of the loop.
> > 
> > So, why should we apply a dead code?
> 
> I will add this patch to the series I mentioned, so there is a first use
> case.

Sounds like a good plan.

> Even if the _available variant is preferred, the other one is more
> widely used, and having a scoped version will allow for safer code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko