Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 15:40:11 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support
Message-ID: <20231102144009.GA9680@redhat.com>
References: <20231102104429.025835330@infradead.org>
 <20231102110706.460851167@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231102110706.460851167@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 11/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>  include/linux/cleanup.h  |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---

interesting... I don't know anything about cleanup.h, will
read this code and the patch later, but I guess I understand
the idea.

Stupid/offtopic question... Can't we change guard()

	-#define guard(_name) \
	-	CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard))
	+#define guard(_name, args...) \
	+	CLASS(_name, __UNIQUE_ID(guard))(args)

and update the current users?

To me

	guard(rcu);
	guard(spinlock, &lock);

looks better than

	guard(rcu)();
	// doesn't match scoped_guard(spinlock, &lock)
	guard(spinlock)(&lock);

And this will make guard() consistent with scoped_guard().

No?

Oleg.