[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231102144009.GA9680@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 15:40:11 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support
On 11/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> include/linux/cleanup.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
interesting... I don't know anything about cleanup.h, will
read this code and the patch later, but I guess I understand
the idea.
Stupid/offtopic question... Can't we change guard()
-#define guard(_name) \
- CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard))
+#define guard(_name, args...) \
+ CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard))(args)
and update the current users?
To me
guard(rcu);
guard(spinlock, &lock);
looks better than
guard(rcu)();
// doesn't match scoped_guard(spinlock, &lock)
guard(spinlock)(&lock);
And this will make guard() consistent with scoped_guard().
No?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists