Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards

From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org,
	ndesaulniers@google.com, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
	frederic@kernel.org, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Lock and Pointer guards
Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 13:21:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b08772b-a69c-1f00-a43f-afcc5861ab4e@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230526205204.861311518@infradead.org>

On 5/26/23 16:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> By popular demand, a new and improved version :-)
> 
> New since -v1 ( https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org )
> 
>   - much improved interface for lock guards: guard() and scoped () { }
>     as suggested by Linus.

<name bikeshedding>

I know I'm the one who hinted at C++ "std::scoped_lock" as a similar 
preexisting API, but I find that "scoped()" is weird in the newly 
proposed form. "scoped_lock" is fine considering that "scoped" is an 
adjective applying to "lock", but in the case of e.g. scoped(rcu) { }, 
then we are really declaring a "scope" of type "rcu". I suspect that in 
this case:

scope(rcu) { }

would be less unexpected than the adjective form:

scoped(rcu) { }

Especially if we go for the name "guard()", rather than the adjective 
guarded(), for its counterpart.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com