On 12/11/2017 04:16 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>> I don't understand the need for the qemu_lock_guard_is_taken(&name) >>> condition, why not do the following? >>> >>> for (QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(type, name, lock); >>> ; >>> qemu_lock_guard_unlock(&name)) >> >> Because that would be an infinite loop. :) > > Sorry, I mean for (...; false; ...). Is there any reason to do > qemu_lock_guard_is_taken(&name)?
You need the loop to execute at least once ;)
But I proposed an alternative that doesn't need is_taken, by:
for (bool name##done = false, QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(type, name, lock);
! name##done; name##done = true)
if we still like the form that declares a for-loop scope.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
