[ 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).
Linus
