Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119052-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:19:41 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
Cc: amir73il@gmail.com, hu1.chen@intel.com, miklos@szeredi.hu, 
	malini.bhandaru@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, mikko.ylinen@intel.com, 
	lizhen.you@intel.com, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/5] cleanup: Fix discarded const warning when defining
 lock guard
Message-ID: <20240326-daheim-aluminium-810603172600@brauner>
References: <20240216051640.197378-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
 <20240216051640.197378-2-vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
 <20240318-flocken-nagetiere-1e027955d06e@brauner>
 <20240318-dehnen-entdecken-dd436f42f91a@brauner>
 <87msqlq0i8.fsf@intel.com>
 <20240326-steil-sachpreis-cec621ae5c59@brauner>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240326-steil-sachpreis-cec621ae5c59@brauner>

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:53:12AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 05:50:55PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> > Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> writes:
> > 
> > >
> > > So something like this? (Amir?)
> > >
> > >  
> > > -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, const struct cred, _T->lock = override_creds_light(_T->lock),
> > > -	     revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
> > > +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, struct cred,
> > > +		    _T->lock = (struct cred *)override_creds_light(_T->lock),
> > > +		    revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
> > > +
> > > +#define cred_guard(_cred) guard(cred)(((struct cred *)_cred))
> > > +#define cred_scoped_guard(_cred) scoped_guard(cred, ((struct cred *)_cred))
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > >   * get_new_cred_many - Get references on a new set of credentials
> > 
> > Thinking about proposing a PATCH version (with these suggestions applied), Amir
> > has suggested in the past that I should propose two separate series:
> >  (1) introducing the guard helpers + backing file changes;
> >  (2) overlayfs changes;
> > 
> > Any new ideas about this? Or should I go with this plan?
> 
> I mean make it two separate patches and I can provide Amir with a stable
> branch for the cleanup guards. I think that's what he wanted.

But send them out in one series ofc. Amir and I can sort this if needed.