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

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:52:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 11:41:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> 
> > > I'm sure there's something horribly wrong in the above, but my point
> > > is that I'd really like this to make naming and conceptual sense.
> > 
> > Right, I hear ya. So the asymmetric case (iow destructor only) could be
> > seen as using the copy-constructor.
> > 
> > #define DEFINE_CLASS(name, type, exit, init, init_args...)		\
> > typedef type class_##name##_t;						\
> > static inline void class_##name##_destructor(type *this)		\
> > { type THIS = *this; exit; }						\
> > static inline type class_##name##_constructor(init_args)		\
> > { type THIS = init; return THIS; }
> > 
> > #define __INSTANTIATE_VAR(name, var)					\
> > 	class_##name##_t var __cleanup(class_##name##_destructor)
> > 
> > #define INSTANTIATE_CLASS(name, var)					\
> > 	__INSTANTIATE_VAR(name, var) = class_##name##_constructor
> > 
> > 
> > DEFINE_CLASS(fd, struct fd, fdput(THIS), f, struct fd f)
> > 
> > 	INSTANTIATE_CLASS(fd, f)(perf_fget_light(fd));
> > 
> > 
> > Alternatively, you be OK with exposing INSTANTIATE_VAR() to easily
> > circumvent the default constructor?
> 
> Or perhaps use the smart-pointer concept applied to our classes like:
> 
> #define smart_ptr(name, var) \
> 	__INSTANTIATE_VAR(name, var)
> 
> To mean a pointer that calls the destructor for class 'name'. I think
> the nearest thing C++ has is std::unique_ptr<>.
> 
> 
> Then we can write:
> 
> 
> DEFINE_CLASS(kfree, void *, kfree(THIS), p, void *p)
> 
> 
> 	smart_ptr(kfree, mem) = kzalloc_node(...);
> 	if (!mem)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> 	object = mem;
> 
> 	// further initiatlize object with error cases etc..
> 
> 	mem = NULL; // success, we keep it.
> 	return object;

I like the idea, as we need a way to say "don't clean this up, it was
passed to somewhere else" for these types of allocations, but have it
"automatically" cleaned up on the error paths.

I have no say in the naming, though I always disliked the idea of a
pointer being "smart" as they are just a dumb memory register :)

thanks,

greg k-h