Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 5 authors, 2024-10-07

Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2024-10-03 14:12:28
Also in: lkml

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:46:24PM +0300, 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
Yeah, needs braces like that. I'm not super opposed to this, however, 
And FWIW:
1) still NAKed;
I would really like to understand why you don't like this; care to
elaborate Andy?
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help