Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 10/3/24 14:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:43:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
> > > +	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
> > > +	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
> > > +		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
> > > +		if (0)							\
> > > +		_label:							\
> > > +			break;						\
> > > +		else
> >
> > I believe the following will folow more the style we use in the kernel:
> >
> > #define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
> > 	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
> > 	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
> > 		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
> > 		if (0) {						\
> > _label:									\
> > 			break;						\
> > 		} else
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > -	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1) \
> > > +	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1 +  	\
> >
> > You have TABs/spaces mix in this line now.
>
> And FWIW:
> 1) still NAKed;

I guess you are now opposed to just part of the patch, should I add:
# for enabling "scoped_guard(...) return ...;" shortcut
or keep it unqualified?

> 2) interestingly you haven't mentioned that meanwhile I also helped you to
> improve this version of the patch. Is it because I NAKed it?

0/1 vs false/true and whitespaces, especially for RFC, are not big deal

anyway, I will reword v2 to give you credits for your valuable
contribution during internal review :)