On 11/12/2017 11:23, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> In other words, I don't see what 'QEMU_WITH_LOCK_GUARD() {}' buys us
>> over '{ QEMU_LOCK_GUARD() }'.
> The QEMU_WITH_LOCK_GUARD() {} syntax is nice because it's similar to
> if/while/for statements.
>
> However, { QEMU_LOCK_GUARD() } doesn't hide a for statement in a macro
> so the break statement works inside the scope. Less chance of bugs.The same is true of a "switch" statement. Being able to break out of QEMU_WITH_LOCK_GUARD could also be a feature... Paolo > I'd be okay without QEMU_WITH_LOCK_GUARD().
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
