On 7/23/23 15:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 12:35, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> --- include/exec/exec-all.h | 10 ++++++++++ bsd-user/mmap.c | 1 + linux-user/mmap.c | 1 + 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/exec/exec-all.h b/include/exec/exec-all.h index 5fa0687cd2..d02517e95f 100644 --- a/include/exec/exec-all.h +++ b/include/exec/exec-all.h @@ -629,6 +629,15 @@ void TSA_NO_TSA mmap_lock(void); void TSA_NO_TSA mmap_unlock(void); bool have_mmap_lock(void); +static inline void mmap_unlock_guard(void *unused) +{ + mmap_unlock(); +} + +#define WITH_MMAP_LOCK_GUARD() \ + for (int _mmap_lock_iter __attribute__((cleanup(mmap_unlock_guard))) \ + = (mmap_lock(), 0); _mmap_lock_iter == 0; _mmap_lock_iter = 1)All our other WITH_FOO macros seem to use g_autoptr rather than a raw attribute((cleanup)); is it worth being consistent?
I didn't think it worthwhile, no, since that requires even more boilerplate.
(This one also doesn't allow nested uses, I think.)
It does, since each variable will shadow the next within each context. r~
