Re: [RFC PATCH] cleanup: make scoped_guard() to be return-friendly
From: Dan Carpenter <hidden>
Date: 2024-09-27 07:31:47
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h index d9e613803df1..6b568a8a7f9c 100644 --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h +++ 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; }))
Remove the ", 1". The point of the __guard_ptr() condition is for try_locks but the ", 1" means they always succeed. The only try lock I can find in the current tree is tsc200x_esd_work(). regards, dan carpenter