Re: [PATCH RFC 07/24] cleanup: Basic compatibility with capability analysis

[Bart Van Assche]

On 2/6/25 10:10 AM, Marco Elver wrote:

@@ -243,15 +243,18 @@ const volatile void * __must_check_fn(const volatile void 
*val)
  #define DEFINE_CLASS(_name, _type, _exit, _init, _init_args...)               
\
  typedef _type class_##_name##_t;                                      \
  static inline void class_##_name##_destructor(_type *p)                       
\
+       __no_capability_analysis                                        \
  { _type _T = *p; _exit; }                                             \
  static inline _type class_##_name##_constructor(_init_args)           \
+       __no_capability_analysis                                        \
  { _type t = _init; return t; }

guard() uses the constructor and destructor functions defined by
DEFINE_GUARD(). The DEFINE_GUARD() implementation uses DEFINE_CLASS().
Here is an example that I found in <linux/mutex.h>:

DEFINE_GUARD(mutex, struct mutex *, mutex_lock(_T), mutex_unlock(_T))

For this example, how is the compiler told that mutex _T is held around
the code protected by guard()?

Thanks,

Bart.