Re: [RFC PATCH v2] cleanup: Add cond_guard() to conditional guards

From: Ira Weiny
Date: Tue Jan 30 2024 - 19:04:55 EST


Dan Williams wrote:
> Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > Add cond_guard() to conditional guards.
> > > >
> > > > cond_guard() is used for the _interruptible(), _killable(), and _try
> > > > versions of locks. It expects a block where the failure can be handled
> > > > (e.g., calling printk() and returning -EINTR in case of failure).
> > > >
> > > > As the other guards, it avoids to open code the release of the lock
> > > > after a goto to an 'out' label.
> > > >
> > > > This remains an RFC because Dan suggested a slightly different syntax:
> > > >
> > > > if (cond_guard(...))
> > > > return -EINTR;
> > > >
> > > > But the scoped_cond_guard() macro omits the if statement:
> > > >
> > > > scoped_cond_guard (...) {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Thus define cond_guard() similarly to scoped_cond_guard() but with a block
> > > > to handle the failure case:
> > > >
> > > > cond_guard(...)
> > > > return -EINTR;
> > >
> > > That's too subtle for me, because of the mistakes that can be made with
> > > brackets how about a syntax like:
> > >
> > > cond_guard(..., return -EINTR, ...)
> > >
> > > ...to make it clear what happens if the lock acquisition fails without
> > > having to remember there is a hidden incomplete "if ()" statement in
> > > that macro? More below...
> >
> > I sympathize with the hidden "if" being confusing but there is already
> > precedent in the current *_guard macros. So I'd like to know if Peter has
> > an opinion.
>
> What are you asking specifically? The current scoped_cond_guard()
> already properly encapsulates the "if ()" and takes an "_fail" so why
> wouldn't cond_guard() also safely encpsulate an "if ()" and take an
> "_fail" statement argument?

Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating that the 'if'
would not be encapsulated. And I was wondering if Peter had an opinion.

But if you are agreeing with the direction of this patch regarding the if
then ignore me.

Ira