Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:51:43 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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: <20231103185143.GB26864@redhat.com>
References: <20231102104429.025835330@infradead.org>
 <20231102110706.460851167@infradead.org>
 <20231102144009.GA9680@redhat.com>
 <20231103093023.GA8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wiGpX9+ajuRZeeX48C9ChwS0qNGj+Gkg_kDiuo6KJV00Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiGpX9+ajuRZeeX48C9ChwS0qNGj+Gkg_kDiuo6KJV00Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 11/03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 23:30, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you like that enough to suffer a flag day patch as proposed by
> > Oleg?
>
> I don't find myself caring too much whether we have that "double
> grouping" of the guard type-vs-arguments or the "(type, arg...)"
> syntax.

Neither me,

> I honestly think that "guard(spinlock)(&lock)" makes it more visually
> obvious that the first argument is the "type of guard", while
> "guard(spinlock, &lock)" makes it look like the two arguments are
> somehow at the same level, which they most definitely aren't.

My point was that

	guard(spinlock)(&lock);

doesn't match

	scoped_guard(spinlock, &lock);

but I agree this purely cosmetic, so lets forget it.

Oleg.