[PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

The previous fix was overzealous and included guard() along with
scoped_guard(), but only the later takes curly braces.

The original fix introduced this issue:
-       guard(rcu)();
+       guard(rcu)
+               ();

This is especially visible with security/landlock/*.[ch] which is fully
formatted with clang-format.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Fixes: 99df2a8eba34 ("clang-format: fix formatting of guard() and scoped_guard() statements")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260702.Eibibi4the9j@digikod.net
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
---
 .clang-format | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/.clang-format b/.clang-format
index 6a3de86ab27a..14b44703e0a9 100644
--- a/.clang-format
+++ b/.clang-format
@@ -481,7 +481,6 @@ ForEachMacros:
   - 'genradix_for_each'
   - 'genradix_for_each_from'
   - 'genradix_for_each_reverse'
-  - 'guard'
   - 'hash_for_each'
   - 'hash_for_each_possible'
   - 'hash_for_each_possible_rcu'
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 12:57 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> The previous fix was overzealous and included guard() along with
> scoped_guard(), but only the later takes curly braces.
>
> The original fix introduced this issue:
> -       guard(rcu)();
> +       guard(rcu)
> +               ();
>
> This is especially visible with security/landlock/*.[ch] which is fully
> formatted with clang-format.

This one would go away on its own if one runs the command above from
where the list is meant to be generated -- but `scoped_guard()` would
be also removed.

I guess I can just have a section of explicit ones that come from
outside the line.

I can pick this one through `clang-format` and take the chance to give
an update to the list.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 12:57 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > The previous fix was overzealous and included guard() along with
> > scoped_guard(), but only the later takes curly braces.
> >
> > The original fix introduced this issue:
> > -       guard(rcu)();
> > +       guard(rcu)
> > +               ();
> >
> > This is especially visible with security/landlock/*.[ch] which is fully
> > formatted with clang-format.
> 
> This one would go away on its own if one runs the command above from
> where the list is meant to be generated -- but `scoped_guard()` would
> be also removed.

What do you mean?  Running clang-format -i security/landlock/*.[ch] does
some changes.

> 
> I guess I can just have a section of explicit ones that come from
> outside the line.
> 
> I can pick this one through `clang-format` and take the chance to give
> an update to the list.

Yes please.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:10 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> What do you mean?  Running clang-format -i security/landlock/*.[ch] does
> some changes.

I mean the command on the `.clang-format` file:

  # Taken from:
  #   git grep -h '^#define [^[:space:]]*for_each[^[:space:]]*('
include/ tools/ \
  #   | sed "s,^#define \([^[:space:]]*for_each[^[:space:]]*\)(.*$,  - '\1'," \
  #   | LC_ALL=C sort -u

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 01:11:31PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:10 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean?  Running clang-format -i security/landlock/*.[ch] does
> > some changes.
> 
> I mean the command on the `.clang-format` file:
> 
>   # Taken from:
>   #   git grep -h '^#define [^[:space:]]*for_each[^[:space:]]*('
> include/ tools/ \
>   #   | sed "s,^#define \([^[:space:]]*for_each[^[:space:]]*\)(.*$,  - '\1'," \
>   #   | LC_ALL=C sort -u

Ok, so the guard/scoped_guard changes will disappear once you refreshed
the .clang-format file.  This means that I should not apply the Landlock
changes [1] right?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260708110635.2083515-1-mic@digikod.net/

Do you plan to send this file update with a following v7.2-rc?

> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:20 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> Ok, so the guard/scoped_guard changes will disappear once you refreshed
> the .clang-format file.  This means that I should not apply the Landlock
> changes [1] right?

It would disappear, but that is why I said that we could have a
section of the list that is for explicitly-added entries, where we
could add `scoped_guard` back.

So we could 1) apply your patch, 2) have a patch to add a new section
of the list with the `scoped_guard` entry and a comment, 3) update the
main list, keeping that new section below or above.

(If you want to send that series, please feel free, of course!)

Does that clarify?

Having said that, `clang-format` is not enforced (unlike `rustfmt`),
so you could apply your patch (or not) independently.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:20 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so the guard/scoped_guard changes will disappear once you refreshed
> > the .clang-format file.  This means that I should not apply the Landlock
> > changes [1] right?
> 
> It would disappear, but that is why I said that we could have a
> section of the list that is for explicitly-added entries, where we
> could add `scoped_guard` back.
> 
> So we could 1) apply your patch, 2) have a patch to add a new section
> of the list with the `scoped_guard` entry and a comment, 3) update the
> main list, keeping that new section below or above.

OK, that makes sense. :)

> 
> (If you want to send that series, please feel free, of course!)

I guess parts 2 and 3 should probably be send for v7.13 (it's a big
patch) whereas part 1 in 7.12-rcX, so I'll let you handle that properly.

> 
> Does that clarify?

Yes, thanks.  I'll keep the Landlock-specific patch I sent.

> 
> Having said that, `clang-format` is not enforced (unlike `rustfmt`),
> so you could apply your patch (or not) independently.

Yes, but I enforce it for Landlock, which helps a lot:
- security/landlock/
- include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
- tools/testing/selftests/landlock/
- samples/landlock/

Regards,
 Mickaël

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 2:34 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> I guess parts 2 and 3 should probably be send for v7.13 (it's a big
> patch) whereas part 1 in 7.12-rcX, so I'll let you handle that properly.

Sometimes I sent these PRs to Linus in -rcs, to catch new code, so it
should be fine, I can do it either way.

> Yes, thanks.  I'll keep the Landlock-specific patch I sent.

Sounds good.

> Yes, but I enforce it for Landlock, which helps a lot:

Yeah, that is very good, and I am very glad to see it is useful for
you and that you could get to enforcement.

What I meant is that it cannot really be "truly enforced" across
trees, especially if the config keeps changing and so on; unlike
`rustfmt`, where one is not supposed to push anything to linux-next
that doesn't pass.

I mean, I would love if we could, but it is a very long-term thing.
Over time, my hope is that more subsystems start enforcing it on their
own and so on.

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 7/8/26 3:57 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The previous fix was overzealous and included guard() along with
> scoped_guard(), but only the later takes curly braces.
> 
> The original fix introduced this issue:
> -       guard(rcu)();
> +       guard(rcu)
> +               ();
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

Hi Miguel,

Could you please sent the PR to Linus and Cc stable@?

Thanks,
 Mickaël

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 2:34 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > I guess parts 2 and 3 should probably be send for v7.13 (it's a big
> > patch) whereas part 1 in 7.12-rcX, so I'll let you handle that properly.
> 
> Sometimes I sent these PRs to Linus in -rcs, to catch new code, so it
> should be fine, I can do it either way.
> 
> > Yes, thanks.  I'll keep the Landlock-specific patch I sent.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> > Yes, but I enforce it for Landlock, which helps a lot:
> 
> Yeah, that is very good, and I am very glad to see it is useful for
> you and that you could get to enforcement.
> 
> What I meant is that it cannot really be "truly enforced" across
> trees, especially if the config keeps changing and so on; unlike
> `rustfmt`, where one is not supposed to push anything to linux-next
> that doesn't pass.
> 
> I mean, I would love if we could, but it is a very long-term thing.
> Over time, my hope is that more subsystems start enforcing it on their
> own and so on.
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 4:11 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> Could you please sent the PR to Linus and Cc stable@?

Yeah, sorry, I will prepare the update on top of -rc1.

Regarding the Cc stable, I am not sure. The formatting is not globally
enforced and such a change could break things for others that may be
locally enforcing it using whatever list was there in the past.

(Some may even consider the Fixes: tag itself here a stretch depending
on how one defines "bug"...)

Cheers,
Miguel

Re: [PATCH v1] clang-format: Fix formatting of guard()

[Mickaël Salaün]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2026 at 12:09:18PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 4:11 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > Could you please sent the PR to Linus and Cc stable@?
> 
> Yeah, sorry, I will prepare the update on top of -rc1.
> 
> Regarding the Cc stable, I am not sure. The formatting is not globally
> enforced and such a change could break things for others that may be
> locally enforcing it using whatever list was there in the past.

Well, the bug which is fixed by this patch does "break" the local
enforcement for Landlock code.  This is how I found it and why I
reported it.

> 
> (Some may even consider the Fixes: tag itself here a stretch depending
> on how one defines "bug"...)
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel