linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] property: Use tidy for_each_named

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: <0d470203-fe9c-4bc0-b487-6d638c006232@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 08:55:13 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
 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>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] property: Use tidy for_each_named_* macros

On 14/04/2025 22:14, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:47:44 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:46:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:52:00PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> Implementing if-conditions inside for_each_x() macros requires some
>>>> thinking to avoid side effects in the calling code. Resulting code
>>>> may look somewhat awkward, and there are couple of different ways it is
>>>> usually done.
>>>>
>>>> Standardizing this to one way can help making it more obvious for a code
>>>> reader and writer. The newly added for_each_if() is a way to achieve this.
>>>>
>>>> Use for_each_if() to make these macros look like many others which
>>>> should in the long run help reading the code.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>>> Thanks for cleaning these up!
>>>    
>>>> ---
>>>> The patch was crafted against the IIO/testing branch, and it depends on
>>>> the 76125d7801e5 ("property: Add functions to iterate named child").
>>>> Hence I'd suggest taking this via IIO tree (if this gets accepted).
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why. The for_each_if() is part of v6.15-rc1.
>>
>> Ah, I see, you are trying to fix newly introduced stuff? I would rather suggest
>> to make this straightforward against the current upstream and ask Jonathan to
>> rebase the testing to fold the fixes into a new APIs.
>>
> 
> Or we just do this next cycle maybe. 

I'm not against either of the approaches. I'm (mostly) staying away from 
the computer for this and the next week, so re-spinning this will in any 
case get delayed. In that regard, the next cycle won't be that far away.

> Definitely not going to take anything
> through IIO that hasn't been on the iio list btw.

Ah. Thanks for pointing this out Jonathan! I just used the 
get_maintainer.pl - and added You. I definitely should have added the 
IIO-list!

Yours,
	-- Matti