Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] xen/spinlock: split recursive spinlocks from normal ones

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 04.03.24 08:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.03.2024 15:37, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 29.02.24 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > +#define nrspin_lock_irqsave(l, f)                               \
> > > > +    ({                                                          \
> > > > +        BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(f) != sizeof(unsigned long));       \
> > > > +        ((f) = __nrspin_lock_irqsave(l));                       \
> > > I don't think the outer pair of parentheses is needed here.
> > Turns out it is needed. Otherwise something like:
> >
> >
> > if ( a )
> >       nrspin_lock_irqsave(l, f);
> > else
> >       ...
> >
> > will fail with "else without a previous if".
> That's for "outer" in the whole #define I suppose, when I commented on
> just a specific line inside the construct.
Sorry, I applied your remark to the wrong context.

Yes, one level of parentheses can be removed from this line.


Juergen