Re: [PATCH RFC 07/24] cleanup: Basic compatibility with capability analysis

[Bart Van Assche]

On 2/6/25 10:10 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> @@ -243,15 +243,18 @@ const volatile void * __must_check_fn(const volatile void *val)
>   #define DEFINE_CLASS(_name, _type, _exit, _init, _init_args...)		\
>   typedef _type class_##_name##_t;					\
>   static inline void class_##_name##_destructor(_type *p)			\
> +	__no_capability_analysis					\
>   { _type _T = *p; _exit; }						\
>   static inline _type class_##_name##_constructor(_init_args)		\
> +	__no_capability_analysis					\
>   { _type t = _init; return t; }

guard() uses the constructor and destructor functions defined by
DEFINE_GUARD(). The DEFINE_GUARD() implementation uses DEFINE_CLASS().
Here is an example that I found in <linux/mutex.h>:

DEFINE_GUARD(mutex, struct mutex *, mutex_lock(_T), mutex_unlock(_T))

For this example, how is the compiler told that mutex _T is held around
the code protected by guard()?

Thanks,

Bart.