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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <A19238DC-24F8-4BD9-A6FA-C8019596F4A6@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:26:36 +0200 From: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com> Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>, Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>, "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list iterator variable > On 31. Mar 2022, at 01:15, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> 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: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/ >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com> >> --- > > 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. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/7393b673c626fd75f2b4f8509faa5459254fb87c.camel@redhat.com/ > > > Cheers, > -- > Vinicius
Powered by blists - more mailing lists