[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241002222145.GJ4017910@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 23:21:45 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Okan Tumuklu <okantumukluu@...il.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, krzk@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update core.c
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 06:27:51AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:20:45 +0100 Conor Dooley wrote:
> > (do netdev folks even want scoped cleanup?),
>
> Since I have it handy... :)
>
> Quoting documentation:
>
> Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all "auto-cleanup" APIs,
> including even ``devm_`` helpers, historically. They are not the preferred
> style of implementation, merely an acceptable one.
>
> Use of ``guard()`` is discouraged within any function longer than 20 lines,
> ``scoped_guard()`` is considered more readable. Using normal lock/unlock is
> still (weakly) preferred.
>
> Low level cleanup constructs (such as ``__free()``) can be used when building
> APIs and helpers, especially scoped iterators. However, direct use of
> ``__free()`` within networking core and drivers is discouraged.
> Similar guidance applies to declaring variables mid-function.
>
> See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#using-device-managed-and-cleanup-h-constructs
Bravo. Mind if that gets stolen for VFS as well?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists