Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:58:05 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seqlock: avoid -Wshadow warnings
Message-ID: <20201026165805.GS2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201026165044.3722931-1-arnd@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201026165044.3722931-1-arnd@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:50:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> -	unsigned seq;							\
> +	unsigned __seq;							\

> -	unsigned seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s);			\
> +	unsigned _seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s);			\

> -	unsigned seq = __seqcount_sequence(s);				\
> +	unsigned __seq = __seqcount_sequence(s);			\

Can we have a consistent number of leading '_' ?

Also, I suppose you're going to find the explicit shadow in
___wait_event(), that one's not going to be trivial to fix.