On 28/10/2020 00.34, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:58 PM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:50:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >>> - unsigned seq; \ >>> + unsigned __seq; \ >> >>> - unsigned seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s); \ >>> + unsigned _seq = __read_seqcount_begin(s); \ >> >>> - unsigned seq = __seqcount_sequence(s); \ >>> + unsigned __seq = __seqcount_sequence(s); \ >> >> Can we have a consistent number of leading '_' ? > > Not really ;-) > > The warning comes from raw_read_seqcount_begin() calling > __read_seqcount_begin() and both using the same variable > name. I could rename one of them and use double-underscores > for both, but I haven't come up with a good alternative name > that wouldn't make it less consistent in the process.
At least x86's put_user and get_user use _pu/_gu suffixes on their local variables, so perhaps that could be made a weak default convention? __seq_rsb __seq_rrsb __seq_rrs Hm, or perhaps not. But it's still better than triplicating each macro to do a UNIQUE_ID dance. Rasmus
