From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-8fa8.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-8fa8.mail.infomaniak.ch [83.166.143.168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33B93379C5D for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 12:34:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.166.143.168 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783514086; cv=none; b=VArCJNVIXOGGwcJbNO+KtnKur6Gzqn+s+IUcHSKcrancKDPbOZvzDgHZoBiKMevbPMAHKHHXL7Z6ZefDbErmjUdPXUlWpQTa1RnlreR8UQZCGssBC9PQsWtz2bxOwnWKa9q7MgvaOQ8wWomQaIR2xyk5zbRDSxgQbqF+tDb9pAE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783514086; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KT/7LTy9xq571v9IaG89dfphESmQ58mpHQEjGo9+hzw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=K9aPWmAXs8B8leCMDqooLaFm0zb/65OMOuxdHWeEA3FPgesGmphD8K0Sm11ZIu+tR0s8sSNEe0VrlIjwPVTqoTXV4qYwusAT80rKmOsEiWtKaOMIVtHM4dUh1yG85Ek+HyTBrXUVGvVBZq3W1tZbrLgaH+baAEuOuT02LSvp3rE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=digikod.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=digikod.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digikod.net header.i=@digikod.net header.b=YzXIO433; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.166.143.168 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=digikod.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=digikod.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digikod.net header.i=@digikod.net header.b="YzXIO433" Received: from smtp-4-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (unknown [IPv6:2001:1600:7:10::a6b]) by smtp-3-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gwHbb44DjzXc0; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:34:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digikod.net; s=20191114; t=1783514075; bh=5LMmhOPd+TN+bK3NYtwvD/MItUpinlUlW5UsoM6VDUI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YzXIO433cs8IbSkQuvo4F6eQykcuYBl8mOPMI6zhdamtvnrH6vZnTwVe0UmeYf/M9 sGnI+sKbdgOfghQFhNhMbAcRg9CLU6KoYknPqclB8UoIajsIQAOrr5J7GV28zACaMA qb24Z/kvN7LqBBo+fdC06fijbFTuBD8sjOv8YIcI= Received: from unknown by smtp-4-0000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4gwHbZ2mbqz7qN; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:34:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 14:34:30 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Micka=C3=ABl_Sala=C3=BCn?= To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Miguel Ojeda , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , Andrew Morton , Bart Van Assche , =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=BCnther?= Noack , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard() Message-ID: <20260708.Ka2tahree8ad@digikod.net> References: <20260708105713.2073335-1-mic@digikod.net> <20260708.yi2Ve3eeGa8a@digikod.net> <20260708.kae9Abuath6i@digikod.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Infomaniak-Routing: alpha On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:20 PM Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > > > Ok, so the guard/scoped_guard changes will disappear once you refreshed > > the .clang-format file. This means that I should not apply the Landlock > > changes [1] right? > > It would disappear, but that is why I said that we could have a > section of the list that is for explicitly-added entries, where we > could add `scoped_guard` back. > > So we could 1) apply your patch, 2) have a patch to add a new section > of the list with the `scoped_guard` entry and a comment, 3) update the > main list, keeping that new section below or above. OK, that makes sense. :) > > (If you want to send that series, please feel free, of course!) I guess parts 2 and 3 should probably be send for v7.13 (it's a big patch) whereas part 1 in 7.12-rcX, so I'll let you handle that properly. > > Does that clarify? Yes, thanks. I'll keep the Landlock-specific patch I sent. > > Having said that, `clang-format` is not enforced (unlike `rustfmt`), > so you could apply your patch (or not) independently. Yes, but I enforce it for Landlock, which helps a lot: - security/landlock/ - include/uapi/linux/landlock.h - tools/testing/selftests/landlock/ - samples/landlock/ Regards, Mickaël