On 2024-11-23 12:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 at 07:31, Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
include/linux/tracepoint.h | 45 ++++++++++----------------------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
Thanks. This looks much more straightforward, and obviously is smaller too.
Side note: I realize I was the one suggesting "scoped_guard()", but
looking at the patch I do think that just unnecessarily added another
level of indentation. Since you already wrote the
if (cond) {
..
}
part as a block statement, there's no upside to the guard having its
own scoped block, so instead of
if (cond) { \
scoped_guard(preempt_notrace) \
__DO_TRACE_CALL(name, TP_ARGS(args)); \
}
this might be simpler as just a plain "guard()" and one less indentation:
if (cond) { \
guard(preempt_notrace); \
__DO_TRACE_CALL(name, TP_ARGS(args)); \
}
but by now this is just an unimportant detail.
I think I suggested scoped_guard() mainly because that would then just
make the "{ }" in the if-statement superfluous, but that's such a
random reason that it *really* doesn't matter.
Thanks for the follow up. I agree that guard() would remove one level
of nesting and would be an improvement.
Steven, do you want me to update the series with this change or
should I leave the scoped_guard() as is considering the ongoing
testing in linux-next ? We can always keep this minor change
(scoped_guard -> guard) for a follow up patch.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
