public inbox for drm-ai-reviews@public-inbox.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/exec: Remove the index parameter from drm_exec_for_each_locked_obj[_reverse]
Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 21:59:34 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <review-patch1-20260520101616.41284-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260520101616.41284-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>

Patch Review

**Assessment: Good.**

This hides the loop index variable from callers by introducing helper macros with `__UNIQUE_ID`-generated variable names. The approach is standard kernel practice for preventing name collisions.

The reverse iteration case is correct for `num_objects == 0`:

```c
#define __drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse(exec, obj, __index)	\
	for (unsigned long __index = (exec)->num_objects - 1;		\
	     ((obj) = drm_exec_obj(exec, __index)); --__index)
```

When `num_objects` is 0, `__index` wraps to `ULONG_MAX`, and `drm_exec_obj()` returns NULL immediately. This matches the existing behavior.

All call sites are correctly updated, and the removed `unsigned long index` declarations are the only uses. No issues.

Minor nit: The `unsigned long` type for `__index` in the `for` init is a C99 declaration-in-for, which is fine since the kernel requires C11+.

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-05-25 11:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-20 10:16 [PATCH v2 0/4] drm/exec: drm_exec polishing Thomas Hellström
2026-05-20 10:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/exec: Remove the index parameter from drm_exec_for_each_locked_obj[_reverse] Thomas Hellström
2026-05-20 11:32   ` Christian König
2026-05-25 11:59   ` Claude Code Review Bot [this message]
2026-05-20 10:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] drm/exec: Make the drm_exec_until_all_locked() macro more readable Thomas Hellström
2026-05-20 11:35   ` Christian König
2026-05-25 11:59   ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-05-20 10:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] drm/exec, drm/xe: Avoid abusing the drm_exec retry pointer Thomas Hellström
2026-05-20 11:39   ` Christian König
2026-05-25 11:59   ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-05-20 10:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] drm/exec, drm/xe, drm/amdgpu: Add an accessor for struct drm_exec::ticket Thomas Hellström
2026-05-20 11:42   ` Christian König
2026-05-25 11:59   ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-05-20 11:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] drm/exec: drm_exec polishing Christian König
2026-05-21 11:45   ` Thomas Hellström
2026-05-25 11:59 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-03-31  9:20 [PATCH 0/5] " Thomas Hellström
2026-03-31  9:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] drm/exec: Remove the index parameter from drm_exec_for_each_locked_obj[_reverse] Thomas Hellström
2026-03-31 21:52   ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=review-patch1-20260520101616.41284-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
    --to=claude-review@example.com \
    --cc=dri-devel-reviews@example.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox