Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-10-03 13:00:37
Also in:
lkml
Hi Przemek, On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -167,14 +172,25 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \ CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard)) #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr +#define __is_cond_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_is_conditional + +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...) \ + for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); \ + __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name); \
It would be great if you added the comment that "!__is_cond_ptr(_name)" condition ensures that the compiler does not believe that it is possible to skip the loop body because it does not realize that "__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)" will never return 0 for unconditional locks. You have the explanation in the patch description, but I think it is worth to reiterate here as well.
+ ({ goto _label; })) \
+ if (0) \
+ _label: \
+ break; \
+ else
+Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Thanks. -- Dmitry