On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:12:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2025-03-27 at 15:23 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:58:00AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > [...] > > > > > @@ -65,6 +89,7 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip > > > > > *chip, void *buf, size_t bufsiz) > > > > > ssize_t len = 0; > > > > > u32 count, ordinal; > > > > > unsigned long stop; > > > > > + u8 status; > > > > > > > > Why move `status` out of the do/while block? > > > > > > I'm not a huge fan of stack allocations inside blocks, unless there > > > is a particular reason to do so. > > > > The move to scope based locking and freeing in cleanup.h necessitates > > using scope based variables as well, so they're something we all have > > to embrace. They're also useful to tell the compiler when it can > > reclaim the variable and they often create an extra stack frame that > > allows the reclaim to be effective (even if the compiler can work out > > where a variable is no longer reference, the space can't be reclaimed > > if it's in the middle of an in-use stack frame). I'd say the rule of > > thumb should be only do something like this if it improves readability > > or allows you to remove an additional block from the code. > > Reclaiming here is only shift in the frame pointer, nothing to do with > reclaiming resources or freeing locks. Consolidating value state into > single location does improve readability as far as I'm concerned.
Anyhow, I reverted that change given the feedback :-) Since I'm late sending PR, I'll put this patch to my 6.15 PR. BR, Jarkko
