On 9/27/24 09:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:

quoted

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;	\

                                                ^^^

quoted

+		     ({ 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

You are right that the __guard_ptr() is conditional for the benefit of
try_locks. But here we have unconditional lock. And removing ", 1" part
makes compiler complaining with the very same message:
error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]

so ", 1" part is on purpose and must stay there to aid compiler.

the current tree is tsc200x_esd_work().

regards,
dan carpenter