Re: Clarifying confusion of our variable placement rules caused by cleanup.h

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 16:10:00 -0500
James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 
> > 	{
> > 		struct foo *var __free(kfree) = kmalloc(...)
> > 
> > 		[...]
> > 
> > 		return func(..., var);
> > 	}
> > 
> > It seems a bit strange to have the final return of a function from
> > within an explicit scope block.  
> 
> Well, you did that ... the return could equally well have been outside
> the block.  However, I do think additional scoped blocks for variables
> looks most readable when the scope of the variable is less than the
> code on both sides.  If the variable doesn't go out of scope until the
> final return, I can see an argument for just doing an interior
> declaration.

I guess you mean by adding a ret value?

	{
		struct foo *var __free(kfree) = kmalloc(...)

		[...]

		ret = func(..., var);
	}

	return ret;

As the var that is passed to the function that this function is retuning
(tail call) is only scoped inside the brackets. But anyway, I don't plan on
changing the code in question here.

I do quite often use the scoped_guard() as that does document exactly what
the guard is protecting.

-- Steve