linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net-next: gianfar: Use device_get_named_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <449c1edd-fb57-4ee6-849c-84e68c2aa5c5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:54 +0300
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
 Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: gianfar: Use
 device_get_named_child_node_count()

On 18/06/2025 13:42, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 02:47:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 01:58:26PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> We can avoid open-coding the loop construct which counts firmware child
>>> nodes with a specific name by using the newly added
>>> device_get_named_child_node_count().
>>>
>>> The gianfar driver has such open-coded loop. Replace it with the
>>> device_get_child_node_count_named().
>>
>> Just a side note: The net-next is assumed to be in the square brackets, so when
>> you format patch, use something like
>>
>> 	git format-patch --subject-prefix="PATCH, net-next" ...
> 
> Hi Matti,
> 
> It looks like this patch has been marked as Changes Requested in patchwork.

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't really follow the patchwork.

> I assume because of Andy's comment above.
> 
> Could you address that and submit a v2?

Right. I'll re-spin with different subject.

Yours,
	-- Matti