Re: [RFC v3 1/5] cleanup: Fix discarded const warning when defining lock guard

[Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>]

Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:53:12AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 05:50:55PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> > Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> writes:
>> > 
>> > >
>> > > So something like this? (Amir?)
>> > >
>> > >  
>> > > -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, const struct cred, _T->lock = override_creds_light(_T->lock),
>> > > -	     revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
>> > > +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, struct cred,
>> > > +		    _T->lock = (struct cred *)override_creds_light(_T->lock),
>> > > +		    revert_creds_light(_T->lock));
>> > > +
>> > > +#define cred_guard(_cred) guard(cred)(((struct cred *)_cred))
>> > > +#define cred_scoped_guard(_cred) scoped_guard(cred, ((struct cred *)_cred))
>> > >  
>> > >  /**
>> > >   * get_new_cred_many - Get references on a new set of credentials
>> > 
>> > Thinking about proposing a PATCH version (with these suggestions applied), Amir
>> > has suggested in the past that I should propose two separate series:
>> >  (1) introducing the guard helpers + backing file changes;
>> >  (2) overlayfs changes;
>> > 
>> > Any new ideas about this? Or should I go with this plan?
>> 
>> I mean make it two separate patches and I can provide Amir with a stable
>> branch for the cleanup guards. I think that's what he wanted.
>
> But send them out in one series ofc. Amir and I can sort this if needed.

Yeah, understood.


Thank you,
-- 
Vinicius