On 5/16/19 8:57 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> +static void srp_rename_dev(struct ib_device *device, void *client_data)
> +{
> + struct srp_device *srp_dev = client_data;
> + struct srp_host *host, *tmp_host;
> +> + list_for_each_entry_safe(host, tmp_host, &srp_dev->dev_list, list) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would list_for_each_entry() have been sufficient?
> + char name[IB_DEVICE_NAME_MAX * 8];
Why "* 8"? Would "+ 8" have been sufficient?
Otherwise this patch looks good to me. This patch also passes the tests
I ran.
Thanks,
Bart.
