6.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Christian Brauner brauner@kernel.org
[ Upstream commit 4e97bae1b412cd6ed8053b3d8a242122952985cc ]
This is a class, not a guard so why on earth is it checking for guard pointers or conditional lock acquisition? None of it makes any sense at all.
I'm not sure what happened back then. Maybe I had a brief psychedelic period that I completely forgot about and spaced out into a zone where that initial macro implementation made any sense at all.
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251103-work-creds-init_cred-v1-1-cb3ec8711a6a@ker... Fixes: 5c21c5f22d07 ("cleanup: add a scoped version of CLASS()") Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner brauner@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- include/linux/cleanup.h | 15 ++++++++------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cleanup.h b/include/linux/cleanup.h index 2573585b7f068..19c7e475d3a4d 100644 --- a/include/linux/cleanup.h +++ b/include/linux/cleanup.h @@ -290,15 +290,16 @@ static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##ext##_constructor(_init_args) \ class_##_name##_t var __cleanup(class_##_name##_destructor) = \ class_##_name##_constructor
-#define scoped_class(_name, var, args) \ - for (CLASS(_name, var)(args); \ - __guard_ptr(_name)(&var) || !__is_cond_ptr(_name); \ - ({ goto _label; })) \ - if (0) { \ -_label: \ - break; \ +#define __scoped_class(_name, var, _label, args...) \ + for (CLASS(_name, var)(args); ; ({ goto _label; })) \ + if (0) { \ +_label: \ + break; \ } else
+#define scoped_class(_name, var, args...) \ + __scoped_class(_name, var, __UNIQUE_ID(label), args) + /* * DEFINE_GUARD(name, type, lock, unlock): * trivial wrapper around DEFINE_CLASS() above specifically