Re: [RFC PATCH] cleanup: make scoped_guard() to be return-friendly

[Dan Carpenter]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 03:41:38PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> index d9e613803df1..6b568a8a7f9c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> @@ -168,9 +168,16 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
>  
>  #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr
>  
> -#define scoped_guard(_name, args...)					\
> -	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args),					\
> -	     *done = NULL; __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) && !done; done = (void *)1)
> +#define scoped_guard(_name, args...)	\
> +	__scoped_guard_labeled(__UNIQUE_ID(label), _name, args)
> +
> +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)	\
> +	if (0)						\
> +		_label: ;				\
> +	else						\
> +		for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);		\
> +		     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope), 1;	\
                                               ^^^
> +		     ({ goto _label; }))
>  

Remove the ", 1".  The point of the __guard_ptr() condition is for try_locks
but the ", 1" means they always succeed.  The only try lock I can find in
the current tree is tsc200x_esd_work().

regards,
dan carpenter