Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:51:43 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support |
| |
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.
| |