Re: [PATCH] cgroup: drop unneeded semicolon

[Waiman Long]

On 8/1/26 11:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2026 at 07:37:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > > index 38f8d9df8..f87fc4550 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ DEFINE_PERCPU_RWSEM(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> > >    #define cgroup_assert_mutex_or_rcu_locked()				\
> > >    	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&			\
> > >    			   !lockdep_is_held(&cgroup_mutex),		\
> > > -			   "cgroup_mutex or RCU read lock required");
> > > +			   "cgroup_mutex or RCU read lock required")
> > >    /*
> > >     * cgroup destruction makes heavy use of work items and there can be a lot
> > The RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() macro is basically a "do { ...} while (0...)"
> > statement. It doesn't have a ';' at the end.  So your commit log isn't
> > right.
> >
> > An additional semicolon at the end doesn't harm. By removing the semicolon,
> > even if not needed, may make people wonder if it is right when reading the
> > code wasting their time to figure out if it is all right. So I don't see any
> > advantage in removing it.
> I think the extra semicolon can hurt. Imagine something like this:
>
>          if (blah)
>                  cgroup_assert_mutex_or_rcu_locked();
>          else
>                  something else;
>
> This should work but with the extra semicolon, it doesn't. I don't see why
> we wouldn't fix this. It's obviously wrong.

OK, I think I have misread the patch. Right, the extra ';' should be 
removed. Sorry for the noise.

Cheers,
Longman