Re: [PATCH v4 06/35] cleanup: Basic compatibility with context analysis

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 02:23:19PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:

> > Also, why do we need this second variable with cleanup; can't the
> > existing __scoped_seqlock_cleanup() get the __releases_shared()
> > attribute?
> 
> The existing __scoped_seqlock_cleanup() receives &_s (struct ss_tmp *),
> and we can't refer to the _seqlock from __scoped_seqlock_cleanup(). Even
> if I create a member seqlock_t* ss_tmp::seqlock and initialize it with
> _seqlock, the compiler can't track that the member would be an alias of
> _seqlock. The function __scoped_seqlock_next() does receive _seqlock to
> effectively release it executes for every loop, so there'd be a "lock
> imbalance" in the compiler's eyes.
> 
> So having the direct alias (even if we cast it to make it work in the
> single-statement multi-definition, the compiler doesn't care) is
> required for it to work.

Right -- it just clicked while I was walking outside. Without actual
inlining it cannot see through the constructor and track the variable :/

OK, let me stare at this more.