Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To:     Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@gmail.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@vu.nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@vu.nl>, Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list
 iterator variable
In-Reply-To: <20220324072607.63594-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
References: <20220324072607.63594-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:15:53 -0700
Message-ID: <87fsmz3uc6.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.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@gmail.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;
 - 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);
  

Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius