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

From: Andy Shevchenko
Date: Thu Oct 03 2024 - 13:48:03 EST


On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> 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?

As you put a reference to the whole list the detailed elaboration
is not needed.

> > 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

+ the above now.

I assume every contribution should be credited, no?
Otherwise it sounds like a bit of disrespect.

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

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko