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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:46:24PM +0300, 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
> > 

Yeah, needs braces like that. I'm not super opposed to this, however, 

> And FWIW:
> 1) still NAKed;

I would really like to understand why you don't like this; care to
elaborate Andy?