Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
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 <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] taprio: replace usage of found with dedicated list
 iterator variable
In-Reply-To: <A19238DC-24F8-4BD9-A6FA-C8019596F4A6@gmail.com>
References: <20220324072607.63594-1-jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
 <87fsmz3uc6.fsf@intel.com>
 <A19238DC-24F8-4BD9-A6FA-C8019596F4A6@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:58:55 -0700
Message-ID: <877d8a3sww.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com> writes:

>> On 31. Mar 2022, at 01:15, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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;
>
> 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.


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius