[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34d2f916-3551-4b75-b87a-9d413662369b@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:33:28 +0200
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
<nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>,
Amadeusz Sławiński
<amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Tony Nguyen
<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cleanup: make scoped_guard() to be return-friendly
On 9/30/24 13:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
>> Current scoped_guard() implementation does not support that,
>> due to compiler complaining:
> …
>> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
>> @@ -168,9 +168,16 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
>>
>> #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr
>>
>> -#define scoped_guard(_name, args...) \
>> - for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args), \
>> - *done = NULL; __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) && !done; done = (void *)1)
>> +#define scoped_guard(_name, args...) \
>> + __scoped_guard_labeled(__UNIQUE_ID(label), _name, args)
>> +
>> +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...) \
>> + if (0) \
>> + _label: ; \
>> + else \
>> + for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \
>> + __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope), 1; \
>> + ({ goto _label; }))
>>
>> #define scoped_cond_guard(_name, _fail, args...) \
>> for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args), \
>
> * How do you think about to define such macros before their use?
will do, no problem
>
> * Would you ever like to avoid reserved identifiers in such source code?
> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/DCL37-C.+Do+not+declare+or+define+a+reserved+identifier
we already don't care about this guideline (see __guard_ptr())
OTOH there is DCL37-C-EX3 that says "does not apply for std lib",
and here (in the kernel) we don' need stdlib, (or for the purpose of
bureaucracy we ARE the stdlib for ourselves)
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists