Re: [PATCH v2] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning

[Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>]

On 10/10/24 22:13, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/9/24 6:44 AM, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
>> Change scoped_guard() to make reasoning about it easier for static
>> analysis tools (smatch, compiler diagnostics), especially to enable them
>> to tell if the given scoped_guard() is conditional (interruptible-locks,
>> try-locks) or not (like simple mutex_lock()).
>>
>> Add compile-time error if scoped_cond_guard() is used for non-conditional
>> lock class.
>>
>> Beyond easier tooling and a little shrink reported by bloat-o-meter:
>> add/remove: 3/2 grow/shrink: 45/55 up/down: 1573/-2069 (-496)
>> this patch enables developer to write code like:
>>
>> int foo(struct my_drv *adapter)
>> {
>> 	scoped_guard(spinlock, &adapter->some_spinlock)
>> 		return adapter->spinlock_protected_var;
>> }
>>>
>> Current scoped_guard() implementation does not support that,
>> due to compiler complaining:
>> error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
> 
> I was hoping that this would allow us to do the same with
> scoped_cond_guard() so that we could remove a bunch of
> unreachable(); that we had to add in the IIO subsystem. But
> with this patch we still get compile errors if we remove them.
> 
> Is it possible to apply the same if/goto magic to scoped_cond_guard()
> to make it better too?
sure, will do

I will also combine both macros __helper at the same time to reduce
duplication