From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 11:28:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y34D+CnkhVRcneet@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y33jK7p2Xc6KD1ax@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:08:59AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:14:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > + for (int v = atomic_read(&key->enabled); v > 0; )
> >
> > Although it's permitted by the compiler, the kernel style is to not add
> > declarations in conditionals.
>
> I'm thinking the whole motivation for upping to C99 was exactly so that
> we could start using this pattern.
That was one reason, yes. Marco and I wanted to be able to use C99-style
declarations in for loops to make it easier/possible to build macros with
locally-scoped control variables.
I personally prefer using C99-style declarations in for loops, but I don't have
a strong feeling that we *must* do so.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-23 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-19 14:08 [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked Uros Bizjak
2022-10-28 6:41 ` [tip: locking/core] jump_label: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg() in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked() tip-bot2 for Uros Bizjak
2022-11-22 21:14 ` [PATCH] jump_label: use atomic_try_cmpxchg in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked Steven Rostedt
2022-11-23 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-11-23 11:28 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2022-11-23 13:26 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y34D+CnkhVRcneet@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.