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

On 4/28/26 17:01, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>>
>> thank you,
>> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <[email protected]>
>>
>> (next time use "iwl-next" in the title, no need to repost just for that)
>>
> 
> Which sub directories go through iwl-next?  I was trying to update
> my script

Thank you for all the patches so far you have provided and willingness 
to continue.

F:	Documentation/networking/device_drivers/ethernet/intel/
F:	drivers/net/ethernet/intel/
F:	drivers/net/ethernet/intel/*/
F:	include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h
F:	include/linux/net/intel/*/

Perhaps instead of you managing your script, and everybody else doing
the same, there could be some extension added to MAINTAINERS file to
encode the prefix?

In our case, the prefix itself is a message for net maintainers:
iwl or iwl-next means the patch will go first via our tree, and be sent
later as a PR for net/net-next.

Without the prefix it requires guessing what was the submitter intent.
Most patches that go through IWL receive additional round of testing on
real HW too, thanks to our VAL.
Patches that go straight to net are just merged faster.
As intel ethernet maintainer, I want our code tested more, instead of
merged faster (in most cases).

> 
>>>
>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_adminq.h | 2 +-
>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_adminq.h | 2 +-
>>>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> but look at these file names. There is no "iwl" anywhere in
> the names!  :(
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>