Hello, On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 18:06 +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1] > Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../microchip/sparx5/sparx5_mactable.c | 25 +++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_mactable.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_mactable.c > index a5837dbe0c7e..bb8d9ce79ac2 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_mactable.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_mactable.c > @@ -362,8 +362,7 @@ static void sparx5_mact_handle_entry(struct sparx5 *sparx5, > unsigned char mac[ETH_ALEN], > u16 vid, u32 cfg2) > { > - struct sparx5_mact_entry *mact_entry; > - bool found = false; > + struct sparx5_mact_entry *mact_entry = NULL, *iter; > u16 port; > > if (LRN_MAC_ACCESS_CFG_2_MAC_ENTRY_ADDR_TYPE_GET(cfg2) != > @@ -378,28 +377,28 @@ static void sparx5_mact_handle_entry(struct sparx5 *sparx5, > return; > > mutex_lock(&sparx5->mact_lock); > - list_for_each_entry(mact_entry, &sparx5->mact_entries, list) { > - if (mact_entry->vid == vid && > - ether_addr_equal(mac, mact_entry->mac)) { > - found = true; > - mact_entry->flags |= MAC_ENT_ALIVE; > - if (mact_entry->port != port) { > + list_for_each_entry(iter, &sparx5->mact_entries, list) { > + if (iter->vid == vid && > + ether_addr_equal(mac, iter->mac)) { I'm sorry for the late feedback. If you move the 'mact_entry = iter;' statement here, the diffstat will be slightly smaller and the patch more readable, IMHO. There is similar situation in the next patch. Cheers, Paolo
