Re: [PATCH v3] locking/local_lock: s/l/__l/ and s/tl/__tl/ to reduce risk of shadowing

[Vincent Mailhol <mailhol@kernel.org>]

Hi Sebastian,

Thanks for the rebase and for this v3.

On 09/10/2025 at 19:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

(...)

> @@ -223,12 +223,12 @@ typedef spinlock_t local_trylock_t;
>  #define INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(lockname) __LOCAL_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED((lockname))
>  #define INIT_LOCAL_TRYLOCK(lockname) __LOCAL_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED((lockname))
>  
> -#define __local_lock_init(l)					\
> +#define __local_lock_init(__l)					\
>  	do {							\
> -		local_spin_lock_init((l));			\
> +		local_spin_lock_init((__l));			\
>  	} while (0)
>  
> -#define __local_trylock_init(l)			__local_lock_init(l)
> +#define __local_trylock_init(__l)			__local_lock_init(__l)
>  
>  #define __local_lock(__lock)					\
>  	do {							\

The parameters of a function like macro can not shadow existing
symbols because, when invoked, these parameters would be substituted
during the macro expansion by the actual arguments. Only the local
variables declared in the macro would survive after the preprocessor
and thus only those may cause shadowing.

So this last part of the patch is not needed.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol