On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 07:54:45AM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ diff edited to be just the end result ]
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 at 00:44, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > bool has_locked_children(struct mount *mnt, struct dentry *dentry)
> > {
> > + scoped_guard(mount_locked_reader)
> > + return __has_locked_children(mnt, dentry);
> > }
>
> So the use of scoped_guard() looks a bit odd to me. Why create a new
> scope for when the existing scope is identical? It would seem to be
> more straightforward to just do
>
> guard(mount_locked_reader);
> return __has_locked_children(mnt, dentry);
>
> instead. Was there some code generation issue or other thing that made
> you go the 'scoped' way?
>
> There was at least one other patch that did the same pattern (but I
> haven't gone through the whole series, maybe there are explanations
> later).
TBH, the main reason is that my mental model for that is
with_lock: lock -> m X -> m X
pardon the pseudo-Haskell. IOW, "wrap that sequence of operations into
this lock".
Oh, well - I can live with open-ended scope in a function that small and
that unlikely to grow more stuff in it...
