From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F39286425; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:53:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772153629; cv=none; b=IZ3wMeJlWDFlaVo4zW+fPH9jeue9SRU5W+b7EkxU/AvMPHVduwZHNq5Jo9hrt+4CCehesdv4oLa9dNZF2hdDskoI0K6itpnMe2M//HrPqmNHw6gJWat0f0AHafpzMA7DA8a6d0z7icCG4Sh9po1lpXcuj0nlJcspQc24g3bpZyY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772153629; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CmjyhHBzOamf/TIiZ2ARCfteNT7y9VF5jQJbX1dDiAM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=h39PdfdRtIgvGW+DqihpFVnArwhvQcZnKpNnAqnaEykYU+1WuWvqsAgHiBzfKnWDetk11MV6juwvifh7Hkiiyl/L+v7NkHh4/ptLYV/12SFA+ofW1Q0Is8E7/C7IajbgmqHGcCtwf/W+kox+X9xh5G9Se+wGC/k70RKoK7KK99Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf08.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A57C1AE8; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8D64A20029; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 19:53:55 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: SeongJae Park Cc: Dmitry Ilvokhin , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Zi Yan , Oscar Salvador , Qi Zheng , Shakeel Butt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, Benjamin Cheatham Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] mm: introduce zone lock wrappers Message-ID: <20260226195355.611ec7f3@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20260227003856.83271-1-sj@kernel.org> References: <5bcc39cd3a227944d0fbe75ff86cdac92b38d4ca.1772129168.git.d@ilvokhin.com> <20260227003856.83271-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: 66drfiy9dmwciebf5j7fsqroxmzzedms X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8D64A20029 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1/LiC0YloSSM44sJymQ/qyPpNpQ64AKLbM= X-HE-Tag: 1772153612-227748 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX185+mqfSVIc5V+IJg7SmsD8GX4C+AsrLlqGF+GiNx5rp1FR/ah3UYg0ySZaaCC0lC3y4ZOj3GwZRvNDd+jiQ+voXh7q637prwfNUghpmjrfcHBWXH6pj6Zt7HFY086MjXDaLq1BJi+TnWMBNHvNvRTA9iVOHt8dQv0WkMKuXibT3ArN/tDWSD2XbgpIFNTuvbTxOSkHHvRTcd1M1eAaFfIZkTnOnpay0V5xotmMG540AfPniTrLHh5j267JzPYt69h1lEqRPTCS1/ZVFW+450aGnIu92ayUHLLi6Ptre+idC7HVL6gk/4lcHKe1coJSNmTZb815erS9aFI+OZAhIfA9 On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:38:55 -0800 SeongJae Park wrote: > checkpatch.pl complains as below. Should be ok to ignore, but, may better to > kindly make it silence? > > WARNING: Single statement macros should not use a do {} while (0) loop Hmm, why is this an issue? > #116: FILE: include/linux/zone_lock.h:13: > +#define zone_lock_irqsave(zone, flags) \ > +do { \ > + spin_lock_irqsave(&(zone)->lock, flags); \ > +} while (0) > I know this is checkpatch and not you complaining about it, but I really think it's a useless complaint. I can see it better as a do { } while (0) because it is creating a "function" like feature but can't be inline due to flags. This is one of the reasons I still never use checkpatch.pl :-( -- Steve