On Montag, 8. August 2022 10:05:56 CEST Markus Armbruster wrote: > Nikita Ivanov <niva...@cloudlinux.com> writes: > > Summing up the discussion above, I suggest the following patch for TFR() > > macro refactoring. (The patch is sequential to the first one I introduced > > in the start of the discussion). > > > >>From 6318bee052900aa93bba6620b53c7cb2290e5001 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> > > From: Nikita Ivanov <niva...@cloudlinux.com> > > Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:30:34 +0300 > > Subject: [PATCH] Refactoring: rename TFR() to TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY() > > > > glibc's unistd.h header provides the same macro with the > > subtle difference in type casting. Adjust macro name to the > > common standard and define conditionally. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nikita Ivanov <niva...@cloudlinux.com> > > --- > > > > chardev/char-fd.c | 2 +- > > chardev/char-pipe.c | 12 +++++++++--- > > hw/9pfs/9p-local.c | 6 ++++-- > > include/qemu/osdep.h | 6 ++++-- > > net/l2tpv3.c | 8 +++++--- > > net/tap-linux.c | 2 +- > > net/tap.c | 10 ++++++---- > > os-posix.c | 2 +- > > qga/commands-posix.c | 2 +- > > tests/qtest/libqtest.c | 2 +- > > util/main-loop.c | 2 +- > > util/osdep.c | 2 +- > > 12 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/chardev/char-fd.c b/chardev/char-fd.c > > index cf78454841..7f5ed9aba3 100644 > > --- a/chardev/char-fd.c > > +++ b/chardev/char-fd.c > > @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ int qmp_chardev_open_file_source(char *src, int flags, > > Error **errp) > > > > { > > > > int fd = -1; > > > > - TFR(fd = qemu_open_old(src, flags, 0666)); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY(fd = qemu_open_old(src, flags, 0666)); > > > > if (fd == -1) { > > > > error_setg_file_open(errp, errno, src); > > > > } > > > > diff --git a/chardev/char-pipe.c b/chardev/char-pipe.c > > index 66d3b85091..aed97e306b 100644 > > --- a/chardev/char-pipe.c > > +++ b/chardev/char-pipe.c > > @@ -131,8 +131,12 @@ static void qemu_chr_open_pipe(Chardev *chr, > > > > filename_in = g_strdup_printf("%s.in", filename); > > filename_out = g_strdup_printf("%s.out", filename); > > > > - TFR(fd_in = qemu_open_old(filename_in, O_RDWR | O_BINARY)); > > - TFR(fd_out = qemu_open_old(filename_out, O_RDWR | O_BINARY)); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY( > > + fd_in = qemu_open_old(filename_in, O_RDWR | O_BINARY) > > + ); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY( > > + fd_out = qemu_open_old(filename_out, O_RDWR | O_BINARY) > > + ); > > Style question: do we want the ");" on its own line? I think we > generally don't do that for function and function-like macro calls.
So far scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't complain, therefore I used this code style in QEMU before. BTW, another exotic function call code style (not being compalained about yet) in approach: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/e1odqqv-0003d4...@lizzy.crudebyte.com/ > > g_free(filename_in); > > g_free(filename_out); > > if (fd_in < 0 || fd_out < 0) { > > > > @@ -142,7 +146,9 @@ static void qemu_chr_open_pipe(Chardev *chr, > > > > if (fd_out >= 0) { > > > > close(fd_out); > > > > } > > > > - TFR(fd_in = fd_out = qemu_open_old(filename, O_RDWR | O_BINARY)); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY( > > + fd_in = fd_out = qemu_open_old(filename, O_RDWR | O_BINARY) > > + ); > > > > if (fd_in < 0) { > > > > error_setg_file_open(errp, errno, filename); > > return; > > > > diff --git a/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c b/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c > > index c90ab947ba..e803c05d0c 100644 > > --- a/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c > > +++ b/hw/9pfs/9p-local.c > > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static ssize_t local_readlink(FsContext *fs_ctx, > > V9fsPath *fs_path, > > > > if (fd == -1) { > > > > return -1; > > > > } > > > > - TFR(tsize = read(fd, (void *)buf, bufsz)); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY(tsize = read(fd, (void *)buf, bufsz)); > > > > close_preserve_errno(fd); > > > > } else if ((fs_ctx->export_flags & V9FS_SM_PASSTHROUGH) || > > > > (fs_ctx->export_flags & V9FS_SM_NONE)) { > > > > @@ -906,7 +906,9 @@ static int local_symlink(FsContext *fs_ctx, const char > > *oldpath, > > > > } > > /* Write the oldpath (target) to the file. */ > > oldpath_size = strlen(oldpath); > > > > - TFR(write_size = write(fd, (void *)oldpath, oldpath_size)); > > + TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY( > > + write_size = write(fd, (void *)oldpath, oldpath_size) > > + ); > > > > close_preserve_errno(fd); > > > > if (write_size != oldpath_size) { > > > > diff --git a/include/qemu/osdep.h b/include/qemu/osdep.h > > index b1c161c035..55f2927d8b 100644 > > --- a/include/qemu/osdep.h > > +++ b/include/qemu/osdep.h > > @@ -242,8 +242,10 @@ void QEMU_ERROR("code path is reachable") > > > > #if !defined(ESHUTDOWN) > > #define ESHUTDOWN 4099 > > #endif > > > > - > > -#define TFR(expr) do { if ((expr) != -1) break; } while (errno == EINTR) > > +#if !defined(TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY) > > +#define TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY(expr) \ > > + do { if ((expr) != -1) break; } while (errno == EINTR) > > +#endif > > GLibc's version is > > # define TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY(expression) \ > (__extension__ \ > ({ long int __result; \ > do __result = (long int) (expression); \ > while (__result == -1L && errno == EINTR); \ > __result; })) > > The difference isn't just "type casting", it's also statement > vs. expression. > > Is it a good idea to have the macro expand into a statement on some > hosts, and into an expression on others? Sure, CI should catch any uses > as expression, but delaying compile errors to CI wastes developer time. For consistency and simplicity, I would define exactly one version (no ifdefs) of the macro with a different macro name than glibc's TEMP_FAILURE_RETRY(), and use that QEMU specific macro name in QEMU code everywhere. As for statement vs. expression: The only advantage of the statement version is if you'd need __result as an rvalue, which is not needed ATM, right? So I would go for the expression version (with cast) for now. The glibc history does not reveal why they chose the statement version. Best regards, Christian Schoenebeck