Re: [PATCH v3] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() macros to avoid potential warning

[Przemek Kitszel]

On 10/23/24 16:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 03:43:22PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> > On 10/18/24 12:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 12:01:24PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> > > --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h
> > > @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ static __maybe_unused const bool class_#
> > >     */
> > >    #define __scoped_guard(_name, _fail, _label, args...)				\
> > >    	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);	true; ({ goto _label; }))		\
> > > -		if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) && __is_cond_ptr(_name)) {	\
> > > +		if (__is_cond_ptr(_name) && !__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) {	\
> >
> > but this will purge the attempt to call __guard_ptr(), and thus newer
> > lock ;) good that there is at least some comment above
>
> No, __guard_ptr() will only return a pointer, it has no action. The lock
> callback is in CLASS(_name, scope)(args).

Ach, true! Thanks again for taking a look at my series!