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

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 10/3/24 15:00, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Przemek,
>
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > @@ -167,14 +172,25 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \
> >   	CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard))
> >   
> >   #define __guard_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_lock_ptr
> > +#define __is_cond_ptr(_name) class_##_name##_is_conditional
> > +
> > +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
> > +	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
> > +	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
>
> It would be great if you added the comment that "!__is_cond_ptr(_name)"
> condition ensures that the compiler does not believe that it is possible
> to skip the loop body because it does not realize that
> "__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)" will never return 0 for unconditional
> locks. You have the explanation in the patch description, but I think it
> is worth to reiterate here as well.

thanks, I will add an in-code comment; sometimes it's easy to loose
outside perspective if you spend too much time on one piece

> > +		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
> > +		if (0)							\
> > +		_label:							\
> > +			break;						\
> > +		else
> > +
>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.