On 10/3/24 14:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:43:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

+#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

...

quoted

-	     *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;

I guess you are now opposed to just part of the patch, should I add:
# for enabling "scoped_guard(...) return ...;" shortcut
or keep it unqualified?

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?

0/1 vs false/true and whitespaces, especially for RFC, are not big deal

anyway, I will reword v2 to give you credits for your valuable
contribution during internal review :)