Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rv: Convert to use lock guard

[Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 2025-11-26 at 09:36 +0100, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-25 at 14:57 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:06:02 +0000
> > Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > @@ -644,13 +640,11 @@ static ssize_t enabled_monitors_write(struct file
> > > *filp, const char __user *user
> > >  		else
> > >  			retval = rv_disable_monitor(mon);
> > >  
> > > -		if (!retval)
> > > -			retval = count;
> > > -
> > > -		break;
> > > +		if (retval)
> > > +			return retval;
> > > +		return count;
> > 
> > No biggy, but I wonder if this would look better as:
> > 
> > 		return retval ? : count;
> 
> Unless you really prefer it this way, I would rather not. The first time
> I saw this syntax, it confused the hell out of me. Took me some time
> scratching my head until I figured out that it is a GNU extension.
> 
> I prefer to stay with the C standard unless there is major benefit not
> to.

To be fair, I find it a bit obscure as well, although it's frequently used
within the kernel.

Let's not change it then.

Thanks,
Gabriele