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: <20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org>
User-Agent: quilt/0.66
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 17:05:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        will@kernel.org, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        qiang1.zhang@intel.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards
Precedence: bulk

Hi!

Yesterday I was annoyed for the lack of RAII lock guards for entirely spurious
reason, but since you sometimes gotta do silly things I spend today creating some.

My initial (failed) attempts tried to combine __cleanup, _Generic and
__auto_type, but the compilers refused. I've also Googled around and found
(among many others) the QEMU and Glib guards. However I don't like them because
they end up relying on function pointers/indirect calls.

Hence the current pile of CPP hackery.. no indirect calls in sight.

I really like how they end up simplifying the code, but perhaps y'all hate them
with a passion?

I'm thinking we'll at least have a good brawl over naming, esp. the void_guard
needs a better name.

Compile and boot tested with x86_64-defconfig.