Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/intel: Replace manual array size calculation with ARRAY_SIZE

[Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 04:06:48PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> On 4/28/26 12:36, Jakub Raczynski wrote:
> > There are still places in the code where manual calculation of array size
> > exist, but it is good to enforce usage of single macro through the whole
> > code as it makes code bit more readable.
> > While at it, beautify condition surrounding it by reversing check and remove
> > unnecessary casting.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Raczynski <j.raczynski@samsung.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> 
> thank you,
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
> 
> (next time use "iwl-next" in the title, no need to repost just for that)
> 

These prefixes are a headache.  It seems like no big deal if you only
work on one subsystem, but if you're dealing with tree wide code then
we're dealing with 418 trees.

These days I have a script for net and net-next because they are a
high volume list and the original prefix subsystem.  But otherwise
it just automatically puts [PATCH next] if it's in linux-next or
[PATCH] if it's in Linus's tree.

These are all automatic on my end, right?  So it would be totally
possible to automate in the recieving side instead.

Although in this case, my script would net-next in the subject because
I had no idea that Intel was managing their own ethernet drivers...  It
used to be that wireless had their own tree and everything else went
through net.  So it's just seems like a in impossible task to keep track
of it all even if you are not a newbie.  :/

regards,
dan carpenter