From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-173.mta0.migadu.com (out-173.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E845A1A2630 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 01:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740535048; cv=none; b=r2q0OQ1ke03J2L3essbGjSvcSiKzHJGnI353s2H/pD5LxsRBEKpdSRoI320VrWKxJVNu1mn9tnuyEJ+pdgxy70nRu2Ku+7/PSWlXLjqVpmO1DZDp6uphlt+CEonmtHNF4fBGplUR8vLfgCf+y/0R3L+MyU3mRI/4PNtRqsmznCM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740535048; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2AjpPUgwyW35ZlY25/RBMK6h76d3ORQR2twl+cHmmAE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=iT97OOh6LMxH7DhjJGiOTScOojIKaI9TXDf22fS13mMU3joBf2blueo1499cd1LQ3T0VZIBfqnedR91etPj9WVhHhQbbixMQiL4wAqehYCbpxHqOzQ64h8nleOpU8XIM6oL8NMTujuAszFLG97Nz+3IqXar8XInOCo6/7eJIw8M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=vuy8I0AX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="vuy8I0AX" Message-ID: <3db2c2fd-5125-4664-83d0-a0706ef2050f@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1740535034; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2AjpPUgwyW35ZlY25/RBMK6h76d3ORQR2twl+cHmmAE=; b=vuy8I0AX2kkd1NjVZbGg37cUhDQeJMeKe5nEoM65o5UfhKmbIqzYuU9pBMUWsU4YmLjjI2 gjcRzkpsMyaCXuTGcI8mbvFGA+9gy8a/YMGgFP3LeKxcEvr+aB1+fNGWNe/JLmacQq47RQ FKRd9rCECzhjSHl8Z1zYg+AfqpPSUeM= Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:57:03 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/4] stmmac: loongson: Remove surplus loop To: Philipp Stanner , Philipp Stanner , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Huacai Chen , Yinggang Gu , Feiyang Chen , Jiaxun Yang , Qing Zhang Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250224135321.36603-2-phasta@kernel.org> <20250224135321.36603-4-phasta@kernel.org> <437d4fad-6cd4-4f90-a1bb-07193d015cad@linux.dev> <7df6e1846ed6932c789a913c6a10aa8df5e26519.camel@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Yanteng Si In-Reply-To: <7df6e1846ed6932c789a913c6a10aa8df5e26519.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 在 2/25/25 5:15 PM, Philipp Stanner 写道: > On Tue, 2025-02-25 at 17:06 +0800, Yanteng Si wrote: >> 在 2/24/25 9:53 PM, Philipp Stanner 写道: >>> loongson_dwmac_probe() contains a loop which doesn't have an >>> effect, >>> because it tries to call pcim_iomap_regions() with the same >>> parameters >>> several times. The break statement at the loop's end furthermore >>> ensures >>> that the loop only runs once anyways. >>> >>> Remove the surplus loop. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner >> It seems that the fix-tag has been forgotten, next two patches as >> well. > Not forgotten, I just think that patches 2-4 are code improvements, not > bug fixes. > > The issue in patch 1 would cause actual misbehavior (a useless debug > information print in case of a resource collision), whereas 2-4 are > just ugly code, but not actual bugs: the loop always just runs once; > and unmapping the PCI resources manually is valid, but obviously > unnecessary. > > Agreed? You bet! Thanks, Yanteng >