Nouveau - Mar 2022 - [PATCH 2/6] treewide: remove using list iterator after loop body as a ptr

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:18PM +0100, Jakob Koschel
wrote:
> If the list does not contain the expected element, the value of
> list_for_each_entry() iterator will not point to a valid structure.
> To avoid type confusion in such case, the list iterator
> scope will be limited to list_for_each_entry() loop.
> 
> In preparation to limiting scope of a list iterator to the list traversal
> loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element.
> Determining if an element was found is then simply checking if
> the pointer is != NULL.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel at gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c       |  6 +++--
>  drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_sas.c    | 17 ++++++++-----
>  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c       | 38 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>  drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c        | 22 ++++++++++------
>  drivers/usb/gadget/udc/max3420_udc.c | 11 +++++---
>  drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c  | 11 +++++---
>  drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
>  drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
>  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c        | 11 +++++---
>  9 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
The drivers/usb/ portion of this patch should be in patch 1/X, right?

Also, you will have to split these up per-subsystem so that the
different subsystem maintainers can take these in their trees.

thanks,

greg k-h

> On 28. Feb 2022, at 12:20, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:18PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>> If the list does not contain the expected element, the value of
>> list_for_each_entry() iterator will not point to a valid structure.
>> To avoid type confusion in such case, the list iterator
>> scope will be limited to list_for_each_entry() loop.
>> 
>> In preparation to limiting scope of a list iterator to the list
traversal
>> loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element.
>> Determining if an element was found is then simply checking if
>> the pointer is != NULL.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c       |  6 +++--
>> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_sas.c    | 17 ++++++++-----
>> drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c       | 38 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>> drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c        | 22 ++++++++++------
>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/max3420_udc.c | 11 +++++---
>> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c  | 11 +++++---
>> drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
>> drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
>> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c        | 11 +++++---
>> 9 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> 
> The drivers/usb/ portion of this patch should be in patch 1/X, right?
I kept them separate since it's a slightly different case.
Using 'ptr' instead of '&ptr->other_member'. Regardless,
I'll split
this commit up as you mentioned.
> 
> Also, you will have to split these up per-subsystem so that the
> different subsystem maintainers can take these in their trees.
Thanks for the feedback.
To clarify I understand you correctly:
I should do one patch set per-subsystem with every instance/(file?)
fixed as a separate commit?

If I understand correctly, I'll repost accordingly.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
thanks,
Jakob Koschel

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:06:57PM +0100, Jakob Koschel
wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 28. Feb 2022, at 12:20, Greg KH <gregkh at
linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:18PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >> If the list does not contain the expected element, the value of
> >> list_for_each_entry() iterator will not point to a valid
structure.
> >> To avoid type confusion in such case, the list iterator
> >> scope will be limited to list_for_each_entry() loop.
> >> 
> >> In preparation to limiting scope of a list iterator to the list
traversal
> >> loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element.
> >> Determining if an element was found is then simply checking if
> >> the pointer is != NULL.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel at gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c       |  6 +++--
> >> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_sas.c    | 17 ++++++++-----
> >> drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c       | 38
++++++++++++++++++----------
> >> drivers/usb/gadget/configfs.c        | 22 ++++++++++------
> >> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/max3420_udc.c | 11 +++++---
> >> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/tegra-xudc.c  | 11 +++++---
> >> drivers/usb/mtu3/mtu3_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
> >> drivers/usb/musb/musb_gadget.c       | 11 +++++---
> >> drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c        | 11 +++++---
> >> 9 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> > 
> > The drivers/usb/ portion of this patch should be in patch 1/X, right?
> 
> I kept them separate since it's a slightly different case.
> Using 'ptr' instead of '&ptr->other_member'.
Regardless, I'll split
> this commit up as you mentioned.
> 
> > 
> > Also, you will have to split these up per-subsystem so that the
> > different subsystem maintainers can take these in their trees.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> To clarify I understand you correctly:
> I should do one patch set per-subsystem with every instance/(file?)
> fixed as a separate commit?
Yes, each file needs a different commit as they are usually all written
or maintained by different people.

As I said in my other response, if you need any help with this, just let
me know, I'm glad to help.

thanks,

greg k-h