Re: guard coding style (was: Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] gpio: pca953x: Simplify code with cleanup helpers)

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 01:51:01PM -0700, Mitchell Levy wrote:

> The more I think on this issue, the more I go back and forth. If we
> only had guard(...), the only way to approximate scoped guard would be
> to either just do what the macro does (i.e., a dummy for loop that
> only runs once) or use an anonymous scope, e.g.,
> {
>     guard(...);
>     my_one_statement();
> }
> Since this is how I've previously used std::lock_guard in C++, this
> pattern feels very familiar to me, and the scoped_guard feels almost
> like syntax sugar for this. As such, I feel like including the braces
> is most natural because, as Geert mentioned, it emphasizes the scope
> that "should" (in my brain, at least) be there.

AFAIC the anonymous scope thing doesn't much happen in kernel coding
style -- although I'm sure it's there, the code-base is simply too vast
to not have it *somewhere*.