[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zv6SIHeN_nOWSH41@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 15:46:24 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Cc: 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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential
warning
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
>
> ...
>
> > - *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1) \
> > + *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1 + \
>
> You have TABs/spaces mix in this line now.
And FWIW:
1) still NAKed;
2) interestingly you haven't mentioned that meanwhile I also helped you to
improve this version of the patch. Is it because I NAKed it?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists