On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 07:54:57 +0100 (CET) Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, David Lechner wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 10:06 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > 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(). > > There are a bunch of iterators, and I guess a scoped version is needed for > each of them? Yes. I just didn't want to add too much to the RFC. I'd want to convert a user of each as part of the patch set introducing the new loop definitions. Jonathan > > julia > > > > > > > > > + > > > #define for_each_of_cpu_node(cpu) \ > > > for (cpu = of_get_next_cpu_node(NULL); cpu != NULL; \ > > > cpu = of_get_next_cpu_node(cpu)) > > > -- > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > >
