From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:51:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231103185143.GB26864@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiGpX9+ajuRZeeX48C9ChwS0qNGj+Gkg_kDiuo6KJV00Q@mail.gmail.com>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-03 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-02 10:44 [PATCH 0/2] cleanup: Conditional locking support Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-02 10:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] cleanup: Add conditional guard support Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-02 14:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-11-02 15:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-11-03 9:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-03 18:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-11-03 18:51 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2023-11-02 10:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: Convert ptrace_attach() to use lock guards Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-02 15:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-11-02 15:34 ` [PATCH 0/2] cleanup: Conditional locking support Peter Zijlstra
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=20231103185143.GB26864@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox