[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241003141221.GT5594@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:12:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential
warning
On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:46:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:43:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...) \
> > > + for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \
> > > + __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name); \
> > > + ({ goto _label; })) \
> > > + if (0) \
> > > + _label: \
> > > + break; \
> > > + else
> >
> > I believe the following will folow more the style we use in the kernel:
> >
> > #define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...) \
> > for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \
> > __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name); \
> > ({ goto _label; })) \
> > if (0) { \
> > _label: \
> > break; \
> > } else
> >
Yeah, needs braces like that. I'm not super opposed to this, however,
> And FWIW:
> 1) still NAKed;
I would really like to understand why you don't like this; care to
elaborate Andy?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists