On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 14:21, David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Would something like this work (to avoid the hidden update)?
It would certainly work, but I despise code inside macro arguments
even more than I dislike the hidden update.
If we want something like this, we should just make that last argument
be a label, the same way unsafe_{get,put}_user() already works.
That would not only match existing user access exception handling, it
might allow for architecture-specific asm code that uses synchronous
trap instructions (ie the label might turn into an exception entry)
It's basically "manual exception handling", whether it then uses
actual exceptions (like user accesses do) or ends up being some
software implementation with just a "goto label" for the error case.
I realize some people have grown up being told that "goto is bad". Or
have been told that exception handling should be baked into the
language and be asynchronous. Both of those ideas are complete and
utter garbage, and the result of minds that cannot comprehend reality.
Asynchronous exceptions are horrific and tend to cause huge
performance problems (think setjmp()). The Linux kernel exception
model with explicit exception points is not only "that's how you have
to do it in C", it's also technically superior.
And "goto" is fine, as long as you have legible syntax and don't use
it to generate spaghetti code. Being able to write bad code with goto
doesn't make 'goto' bad - you can write bad code with *anything*.
Linus
