Re: [RFC PATCH v2] cleanup: Add cond_guard() to conditional guards

[Dan Williams]

Ira Weiny wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > Add cond_guard() to conditional guards.
> > > 
> > > cond_guard() is used for the _interruptible(), _killable(), and _try
> > > versions of locks. It expects a block where the failure can be handled
> > > (e.g., calling printk() and returning -EINTR in case of failure).
> > > 
> > > As the other guards, it avoids to open code the release of the lock
> > > after a goto to an 'out' label.
> > > 
> > > This remains an RFC because Dan suggested a slightly different syntax:
> > > 
> > > 	if (cond_guard(...))
> > > 		return -EINTR;
> > > 
> > > But the scoped_cond_guard() macro omits the if statement:
> > > 
> > >     	scoped_cond_guard (...) {
> > >     	}
> > > 
> > > Thus define cond_guard() similarly to scoped_cond_guard() but with a block
> > > to handle the failure case:
> > > 
> > > 	cond_guard(...)
> > > 		return -EINTR;
> > 
> > That's too subtle for me, because of the mistakes that can be made with
> > brackets how about a syntax like:
> > 
> >  	cond_guard(..., return -EINTR, ...)
> > 
> > ...to make it clear what happens if the lock acquisition fails without
> > having to remember there is a hidden incomplete "if ()" statement in
> > that macro? More below...
> 
> I sympathize with the hidden "if" being confusing but there is already
> precedent in the current *_guard macros.  So I'd like to know if Peter has
> an opinion.

What are you asking specifically? The current scoped_cond_guard()
already properly encapsulates the "if ()" and takes an "_fail" so why
wouldn't cond_guard() also safely encpsulate an "if ()" and take an
"_fail" statement argument?