Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 11:28:56 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in
 static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked
Message-ID: <Y34D+CnkhVRcneet@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20221019140850.3395-1-ubizjak@gmail.com>
 <20221122161446.28907755@gandalf.local.home>
 <Y33jK7p2Xc6KD1ax@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y33jK7p2Xc6KD1ax@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:08:59AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:14:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > > +	for (int v = atomic_read(&key->enabled); v > 0; )
> > 
> > Although it's permitted by the compiler, the kernel style is to not add
> > declarations in conditionals.
> 
> I'm thinking the whole motivation for upping to C99 was exactly so that
> we could start using this pattern.

That was one reason, yes. Marco and I wanted to be able to use C99-style
declarations in for loops to make it easier/possible to build macros with
locally-scoped control variables.

I personally prefer using C99-style declarations in for loops, but I don't have
a strong feeling that we *must* do so.

Thanks,
Mark.