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;
Message-ID: <322d22f5-7ab0-adbd-45a0-879364d79ce8@efficios.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 May 2023 16:28:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/13] blk-mq.h: Fix parentheses around macro
 parameter use
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230504200527.1935944-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20230504200527.1935944-13-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <3b017a9f-220d-4da8-2cf6-7f0d6175b30c@efficios.com>
 <CAHk-=wjzpHjqhybyEhkTzGgTdBP3LZ1FmOw8=1MMXr=-j5OPxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3cc72a67-d648-0040-6f60-37663797e360@efficios.com>
 <CAHk-=wh-x1PL=UUGD__Dv6kd+kyCHjNF-TCHGG9ayLnysf-PdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d8dfd1af-5b82-ddd8-24f5-fa9dfbb4b1fb@efficios.com>
 <CAHk-=wg27iiFZWYmjKmULxwkXisOHuAXq=vbiazBabgh9M1rqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg27iiFZWYmjKmULxwkXisOHuAXq=vbiazBabgh9M1rqg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-05-05 16:22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 1:08 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> The reason why I think the lvalue of a "=" operator can be argued to be
>> "special" is because it is simply invalid to apply many of the C
>> operators to an lvalue (e.g. +, -, /, ...),
> 
> Mathieu, you are simply objectively wrong.
> 
> See here:
> 
>    #define m1(x) (x = 2)
>    #define m2(x) ((x) = 2)
> 
> and then try using the argument "a = b" to those macros.
> 
> Guess which one flags it as an error ("lvalue required") and which one does not?

I'm glad you are proving me wrong. So it was just a lack of imagination 
on my end.

> 
> m2 is the only "good" one. Yes, m1 works in 99% of all cases in
> practice, but if you want a safer macro, you *will* add the
> parentheses.
> 
> So *STOP*ARGUING* based on an incorrect "lowest precedence" basis.
> Even for the "lowest precedence" case, you have the *same* precedence.

Yes, your example clearly shows it.

> The fact is, assignment is not in any way special operation in macros,
> and does not deserve - and should absolutely not have - any special
> "doesn't need parentheses around argument" rules.

Good point. You are right. So that strongly supports the parentheses 
around use of parameters as lvalues. One less special-case to care 
about, which is great.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com