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: <8b08772b-a69c-1f00-a43f-afcc5861ab4e@efficios.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 May 2023 13:21:58 -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: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        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, 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,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
References: <20230526205204.861311518@infradead.org>
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230526205204.861311518@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/26/23 16:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> By popular demand, a new and improved version :-)
> 
> New since -v1 ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org )
> 
>   - much improved interface for lock guards: guard() and scoped () { }
>     as suggested by Linus.

<name bikeshedding>

I know I'm the one who hinted at C++ "std::scoped_lock" as a similar 
preexisting API, but I find that "scoped()" is weird in the newly 
proposed form. "scoped_lock" is fine considering that "scoped" is an 
adjective applying to "lock", but in the case of e.g. scoped(rcu) { }, 
then we are really declaring a "scope" of type "rcu". I suspect that in 
this case:

scope(rcu) { }

would be less unexpected than the adjective form:

scoped(rcu) { }

Especially if we go for the name "guard()", rather than the adjective 
guarded(), for its counterpart.

Thanks,

Mathieu


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