netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/13] net: Simplified with scoped function

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: <71deb322-4b54-4c1c-a665-d9de84ea9baf@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:45:32 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
Cc: woojung.huh@...rochip.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, olteanv@...il.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org, alsi@...g-olufsen.dk,
 justin.chen@...adcom.com, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
 alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
 mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, wens@...e.org, jernej.skrabec@...il.com,
 samuel@...lland.org, hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
 ansuelsmth@...il.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, jic23@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/13] net: Simplified with scoped function

On 28/08/2024 16:32, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:23:30AM +0800, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>> Simplify with scoped for each OF child loop and __free(), as well as
>> dev_err_probe().
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Subject prefix: next -> net-next.
>> - Split __free() from scoped for each OF child loop clean.
>> - Fix use of_node_put() instead of __free() for the 5th patch.
> 
> I personally think all these __free() are ugly and magical. Can it

It is code readability so quite subjective. Jakub also rejected one of
such __free() changes, so maybe all these cases here should be rejected?

> somehow be made part of of_get_child_by_name()? Add an
> of_get_child_by_name_func_ref() which holds a reference to the node
> for the scope of the function?

That's interesting, scoped-wrapper. I am afraid we would need quite a
lot of them, though, for every of_get_xxx call.

Best regards,
Krzysztof