lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/5] of: Introduce for_each_child_of_node_scoped() to automate of_node_put() handling
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 03:11:01PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:06 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> >
> > To avoid issues with out of order cleanup, or ambiguity about when the
> > auto freed data is first instantiated, do it within the for loop definition.
> >
> > The disadvantage is that the struct device_node *child variable creation
> > is not immediately obvious where this is used.
> > However, in many cases, if there is another definition of
> > struct device_node *child; the compiler / static analysers will notify us
> > that it is unused, or uninitialized.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/of.h | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h
> > index 50e882ee91da..f822226eac6d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/of.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/of.h
> > @@ -1434,6 +1434,12 @@ static inline int of_property_read_s32(const struct device_node *np,
> > for (child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child))
> >
> > +#define for_each_child_of_node_scoped(parent, child) \
> > + for (struct device_node *child __free(device_node) = \
> > + of_get_next_child(parent, NULL); \
> > + child != NULL; \
> > + child = of_get_next_available_child(parent, child))
>
> Doesn't this need to match the initializer (of_get_next_child)?
> Otherwise it seems like the first node could be a disabled node but no
> other disabled nodes would be included in the iteration.
>
> It seems like we would want two macros, one for each variation,
> analogous to for_each_child_of_node() and
> for_each_available_child_of_node().

Yes, but really I'd like these the other way around. 'available' should
be the default as disabled should really be the same as a node not
present except for a few cases where it is not.

I bring it up only because if we're changing things then it is a
convenient time to change this. That's really a side issue to sorting
out how this new way should work.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 14:43    [W:0.073 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site