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  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, 31 Mar 2022 10:58:55 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <>
To:     Jakob Koschel <>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <>,
        Cong Wang <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Netdev <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <>,
        "Bos, H.J." <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list
 iterator variable

Jakob Koschel <> writes:

>> On 31. Mar 2022, at 01:15, Vinicius Costa Gomes <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Jakob Koschel <> 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:
>>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <>
>>> ---
>> 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;
> Thanks for the input, I'll split them up.
>> - 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);
> I'll include that prefix, thanks.
> Paolo Abeni [CC'd] suggested to bundle all net-next patches in one series [1].
> If that's the general desire I'm happy to do that.

I agree with that, having one series for the whole net-next is going to
be easier for everyone.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists