Re: [PATCH v1] cleanup: adjust scoped_guard() to avoid potential warning

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

On 10/3/24 14:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 03:43:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 01:39:06PM +0200, Przemek Kitszel wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> +#define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
>>> +	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
>>> +	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
>>> +		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
>>> +		if (0)							\
>>> +		_label:							\
>>> +			break;						\
>>> +		else
>>
>> I believe the following will folow more the style we use in the kernel:
>>
>> #define __scoped_guard_labeled(_label, _name, args...)			\
>> 	for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args);					\
>> 	     __guard_ptr(_name)(&scope) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name);	\
>> 		     ({ goto _label; }))				\
>> 		if (0) {						\
>> _label:									\
>> 			break;						\
>> 		} else
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> -	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1) \
>>> +	     *done = NULL; !done; done = (void *)1 +  	\
>>
>> You have TABs/spaces mix in this line now.
> 
> And FWIW:
> 1) still NAKed;

I guess you are now opposed to just part of the patch, should I add:
# for enabling "scoped_guard(...) return ...;" shortcut
or keep it unqualified?

> 2) interestingly you haven't mentioned that meanwhile I also helped you to
> improve this version of the patch. Is it because I NAKed it?
> 

0/1 vs false/true and whitespaces, especially for RFC, are not big deal

anyway, I will reword v2 to give you credits for your valuable
contribution during internal review :)