[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87msqlq0i8.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:50:55 -0700
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: amir73il@...il.com, hu1.chen@...el.com, miklos@...redi.hu,
malini.bhandaru@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com,
lizhen.you@...el.com, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/5] cleanup: Fix discarded const warning when defining
lock guard
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> writes:
>
> So something like this? (Amir?)
>
>
> -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, const struct cred, _T->lock = override_creds_light(_T->lock),
> - revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, struct cred,
> + _T->lock = (struct cred *)override_creds_light(_T->lock),
> + revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
> +
> +#define cred_guard(_cred) guard(cred)(((struct cred *)_cred))
> +#define cred_scoped_guard(_cred) scoped_guard(cred, ((struct cred *)_cred))
>
> /**
> * get_new_cred_many - Get references on a new set of credentials
Thinking about proposing a PATCH version (with these suggestions applied), Amir
has suggested in the past that I should propose two separate series:
(1) introducing the guard helpers + backing file changes;
(2) overlayfs changes;
Any new ideas about this? Or should I go with this plan?
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
Powered by blists - more mailing lists