Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-47495-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
 linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] cleanup: Add cond_guard() to conditional guards
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 02:25:46 +0100
Message-ID: <5284664.GXAFRqVoOG@fdefranc-mobl3>
Organization: intel
In-Reply-To: <65baefec49c1a_4e7f52946b@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
References:
 <20240131134108.423258-1-fabio.maria.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
 <6168759.DvuYhMxLoT@fdefranc-mobl3>
 <65baefec49c1a_4e7f52946b@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thursday, 1 February 2024 02:12:12 CET Dan Williams wrote:
> Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > I just noticed that this is not the final version. It misses a semicolon.
> > Please discard this v3. I'm sending v4.
> 
> Ok, but do please copy the aspect of scoped_conf_guard() to take a
> "_fail" statement argument. Passing a return code collector variable by
> reference just feels a bit too magical. I like the explicitness of
> passing the statement directly.

I'm sorry I haven't been clear. The following call convention fails my tests:

	cond_guard(..., rc = -EINTR, ...);

It always returns -EINTR, regardless of the success of 
down_read_interuptible(). There must be a reason that I can't see.

It works only if we immediaely return an error code: 

	cond_guard(..., return -EINTR, ...);

But this is not what we want since we want to check 'rc'.

Fabio