On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:27:54AM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 03:07:07AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > Differentiate the first group by using "__seqcount_t_" as prefix. This > > also conforms with the rest of seqlock.h naming conventions. > > > #define __seqprop_case(s, locktype, prop) \ > > seqcount_##locktype##_t: __seqcount_##locktype##_##prop((void *)(s)) > > > > #define __seqprop(s, prop) _Generic(*(s), \ > > - seqcount_t: __seqcount_##prop((void *)(s)), \ > > + seqcount_t: __seqcount_t_##prop((void *)(s)), \ > > __seqprop_case((s), raw_spinlock, prop), \ > > __seqprop_case((s), spinlock, prop), \ > > __seqprop_case((s), rwlock, prop), \ > > If instead you do: > > #define __seqprop_case(s, _lockname, prop) \ > seqcount##_lockname##_t: __seqcount##_lockname##_##prop((void *)(s)) > > You can have: > > __seqprop_case((s), , prop), > __seqprop_case((s), _raw_spinlock, prop), > __seqprop_case((s), _spinlock, prop), > __seqprop_case((s), _rwlock, prop), > __seqprop_case((s), _mutex, prop), > __seqprop_case((s), _ww_mutex, prop), > > And it's all good again. > > Although arguably we should do something like s/__seqcount/__seqprop/ > over this lot. >
ACK.
