Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <07c32bf1-6c1a-49d9-b97d-f0ae4a2b42ab@p183> <CAHk-=whO1+-4ALjFWSE0kzytz1kEbWPvy3xWvcUP1dJ4t-QqkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSetxQi+t3SBXu6OvBbmxV8AbX2CfdSA9JvF1chLJSU9Ppw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgRHiV5VSxtfXA4S6aLUmcQYEuB67u3BJPJPtuESs1JyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSevZQgik7S-62fz9H7+Mib+W0CgYMV4GyWjYV7N_E6iHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSevrJ5KSPAZVheXkNaYj8KQFD8ck55kU_E4vEj4vzR8wnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wicfvWPuRVDG5R1mZSxD8Xg=-0nLOiHay2T_UJ0yDX42g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230915210851.GA23174@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=whvOGL3aNhtps0YksGtzvaob_bvZpbaTcVEqGwNMxB6xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230915213231.GB23174@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAHk-=wi08ZUguV_n88h=bP6X01-tah29RtB0t9TmXtyuEJev-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi08ZUguV_n88h=bP6X01-tah29RtB0t9TmXtyuEJev-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiq_0O+KT0x8OL5_rV2FkvxHNOWNxU=HKknmDGXin_r_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Buggy __free(kfree) usage pattern already in tree
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 14:50, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Call it "cond_guard()", and make the syntax otherwise be the same as
> "scoped_guard()", iow, using a unique ID for the guard name.

I *think* you don't even need a new "cond_guard()" macro.

This might be as simple as having our current scoped_guard() macro
have the conditional

  "scope.lock && !done"

instead of just the current "!done".

Then you introduce "trylock" variants that conditionally set "lock = 1".

I dunno. Maybe there's something really obvious I'm missing, but I
really think that gives us the option to literally do just

        scoped_guard(try_mutex, ..somelock..) {
                ...
        }

and all it requires is for us to declare a "try_mutex" lock guard class.

Ok, so the current DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_x() macros clearly set .lock to 1
unconditionally, so there's a small matter of extending the lock side
to be conditional...

"SMOP".

                 Linus