[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26605fd6-0ed5-44f9-981e-d378a192bf0d@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:31:43 +0200
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, David Lechner
<dlechner@...libre.com>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Michael Hennerich
<michael.hennerich@...log.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cleanup: add conditional guard helper
On 10/18/24 13:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:30:18PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> Add a new if_not_cond_guard() macro to cleanup.h for handling
>> conditional guards such as mutext_trylock().
>>
>> This is more ergonomic than scoped_cond_guard() for most use cases.
>> Instead of hiding the error handling statement in the macro args, it
>> works like a normal if statement and allow the error path to be indented
>> while the normal code flow path is not indented. And it avoid unwanted
>> side-effect from hidden for loop in scoped_cond_guard().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
So this is guard()() with error handler for cond class of locks.
I would name such guard_or_err(), or guard_or_err_block(), to make it
obvious why there is a block attached (so bad we could not ENFORCE that
there is a block atached).
Then, having it, it would make sense to not only limit guard_or_err() to
cond class of locks, but also forbid plain guard() with cond locks
(instead just discouraging it in the doc).
>> ---
>> include/linux/cleanup.h | 11 +++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h
>> index 038b2d523bf8..682bb3fadfc9 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
>> @@ -273,6 +273,10 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
>> * an anonymous instance of the (guard) class, not recommended for
>> * conditional locks.
>> *
>> + * if_not_cond_guard(name, args...) { <error handling> }:
>> + * convenience macro for conditional guards that calls the statement that
>> + * follows only if the lock was not acquired (typically an error return).
>> + *
>> * scoped_guard (name, args...) { }:
>> * similar to CLASS(name, scope)(args), except the variable (with the
>> * explicit name 'scope') is declard in a for-loop such that its scope is
>> @@ -304,6 +308,13 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
>>
>> #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr
>>
>> +#define __if_not_cond_guard(_name, _id, args...) \
>> + CLASS(_name, _id)(args); \
>> + if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&_id))
>> +
>> +#define if_not_cond_guard(_name, args...) \
>> + __if_not_cond_guard(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard), args)
>> +
>> #define scoped_guard(_name, args...) \
>> for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args), \
>> *done = NULL; __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) && !done; done = (void *)1)
>
>
> So if I stick this on top of:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241011121535.28049-1-przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com
I have v4 that fixes non-cond version. Apologies it took me that long.
[v4]
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241018113823.171256-1-przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com
I have tested it also with the unrechable() calls removed, as suggested
by David Lechner here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/0f4786e9-d738-435d-afb9-8c0c4a028ddb@baylibre.com
>
> then I can add the below:
>
> --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##
> * convenience macro for conditional guards that calls the statement that
> * follows only if the lock was not acquired (typically an error return).
> *
> + * Only for conditional locks.
> + *
> * scoped_guard (name, args...) { }:
> * similar to CLASS(name, scope)(args), except the variable (with the
> * explicit name 'scope') is declard in a for-loop such that its scope is
> @@ -290,7 +292,6 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##
> * acquire fails.
> *
> * Only for conditional locks.
> - *
> */
>
> #define __DEFINE_CLASS_IS_CONDITIONAL(_name, _is_cond) \
> @@ -342,6 +343,7 @@ _label: \
> __UNIQUE_ID(label), args)
>
> #define __if_not_guard(_name, _id, args...) \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__is_cond_ptr(_name)); \
> CLASS(_name, _id)(args); \
> if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&_id))
>
>
> That make sense to people?
despite name, looks promising!
>
> I've queued these two patches:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git locking/core
>
> But lacking if_not_guard() users, the robot isn't really going to give
> me much feedback there, I suppose...
Couldn't you just pick the other patches, that use the newly introduced
macro?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists