Re: [PATCH v2] cleanup: Add usage and style documentation

[Markus Elfring]

…
> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,157 @@
>
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>
> +/**
> + * DOC: scope-based cleanup helpers
> + *
> + * The "goto error" pattern is notorious for introducing …

Will any other label become more helpful for this description approach?

> + * this tedium …

Would an other wording be more appropriate here?


> + *                          … maintaining FILO (first in last out)

How does this text fit to your response from yesterday?
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6601c7f7369d4_2690d29490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.notmuch/


> + *                                                       … If a function
> + * wants to invoke pci_dev_put() on error, but return @dev (i.e. without
> + * freeing it) on success, it can do:
> + *
> + * ::
> + *
> + *	return no_free_ptr(dev);
> + *
> + * ...or:
> + *
> + * ::
> + *
> + *	return_ptr(dev);
…

Would this macro call be preferred as a succinct specification
(so that only the shorter one should be mentioned here)?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8.1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L78


> + * Observe the lock is held for the remainder of the "if ()" block not
> + * the remainder of "func()".

I suggest to add a word in this sentence.

* Observe the lock is held for the remainder of the "if ()" block
* (and not the remainder of "func()").


> + * the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem

I suggest to add a comma at the end of this line.


> + * the recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one
> + * statement and not group variable definitions at the top of the
> + * function when __free() is used.

I became curious how code layout guidance will evolve further also
according to such an advice.


Would you like to increase the collaboration with the macros “DEFINE_CLASS” and “CLASS”?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8.1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L82

Regards,
Markus