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

From: Przemek Kitszel
Date: Mon Sep 30 2024 - 06:22:12 EST


On 9/27/24 17:04, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 04:08:30PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
On 9/27/24 09:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
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

You are right that the __guard_ptr() is conditional for the benefit of
try_locks. But here we have unconditional lock. And removing ", 1" part
makes compiler complaining with the very same message:
error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]

so ", 1" part is on purpose and must stay there to aid compiler.

the current tree is tsc200x_esd_work().

Obviously, we can't break stuff and also checking __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) is
pointless if we're going to ignore the return value.

But, sure, I get that we want to the compiler to know that regular spin_lock()
is going to succeed and spin_trylock() might not. As a static checker
developer, I want that as well. Currently, whenever someone creates a new class
of locks, I have to add a couple lines to Smatch to add this information. It's
not a huge deal, but it would be nice to avoid this.

I did a `git grep scoped_guard | grep try` and I think tsc200x_esd_work() is the
only place which actually uses try locks with scoped_guard(). If it's just the
one, then why don't we create a scoped_guard_trylock() macro?

Most of the time it is just easier to bend your driver than change or
extend the core of the kernel.

There is actually scoped_cond_guard() which is a trylock variant.

scoped_guard(mutex_try, &ts->mutex) you have found is semantically
wrong and must be fixed.

---
I have received also a bot message about "if (x) scoped_guard(y, z)"
usage (without braces), so will need to adjust it too.