Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] seqlock: Use unique prefix for seqcount_t property accessors

[Ahmed S. Darwish]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:27:54AM +0200, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:07:07AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > Differentiate the first group by using "__seqcount_t_" as prefix. This
> > also conforms with the rest of seqlock.h naming conventions.
>
> >  #define __seqprop_case(s, locktype, prop)				\
> >  	seqcount_##locktype##_t: __seqcount_##locktype##_##prop((void *)(s))
> >
> >  #define __seqprop(s, prop) _Generic(*(s),				\
> > -	seqcount_t:		__seqcount_##prop((void *)(s)),		\
> > +	seqcount_t:		__seqcount_t_##prop((void *)(s)),	\
> >  	__seqprop_case((s),	raw_spinlock,	prop),			\
> >  	__seqprop_case((s),	spinlock,	prop),			\
> >  	__seqprop_case((s),	rwlock,		prop),			\
>
> If instead you do:
>
> #define __seqprop_case(s, _lockname, prop) \
> 	seqcount##_lockname##_t: __seqcount##_lockname##_##prop((void *)(s))
>
> You can have:
>
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	,		prop),
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	_raw_spinlock,	prop),
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	_spinlock,	prop),
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	_rwlock,	prop),
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	_mutex,		prop),
> 	__seqprop_case((s),	_ww_mutex,	prop),
>
> And it's all good again.
>
> Although arguably we should do something like s/__seqcount/__seqprop/
> over this lot.
>

ACK.