[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201028085127.GV2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:51:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seqlock: avoid -Wshadow warnings
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:34:10AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:58 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:50:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > - unsigned seq; \
> > > + unsigned __seq; \
> >
> > > - unsigned seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s); \
> > > + unsigned _seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s); \
> >
> > > - unsigned seq = __seqcount_sequence(s); \
> > > + unsigned __seq = __seqcount_sequence(s); \
> >
> > Can we have a consistent number of leading '_' ?
>
> Not really ;-)
Duh.. ok, I'll take it as is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists