ksummit.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: Clarifying confusion of our variable placement rules caused by cleanup.h
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 11:04:55 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <82a250e0-de9e-467a-882e-7acefbfd7c24@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiCOTW5UftUrAnvJkr6769D29tF7Of79gUjdQHS_TkF5A@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/18/25 10:38 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, we currently don't use __auto_type very much outside of macros
> (and there we often use "typeof(x)" instead for historical compiler
> reasons), but I suspect we probably should.  There's a patch floating
> around that makes it more convenient with a
> 
>     #define auto __auto_type
> 
> because the historical C 'auto' keyword has been so completely and
> utterly useless.

In a C++ style guide I found the following advice for type deduction:

"Use type deduction only if it makes the code clearer to readers who
aren't familiar with the project, or if it makes the code safer. Do not
use it merely to avoid the inconvenience of writing an explicit type."

However, I'm not sure whether this guidance also makes sense for C 
kernel code. See also
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Type_deduction

Thanks,

Bart.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-18 19:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-18 16:39 James Bottomley
2025-11-18 17:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-11-18 18:38   ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 19:04     ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2025-11-18 19:14       ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 20:43         ` Al Viro
2025-11-18 19:15       ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-11-18 19:11     ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-11-18 19:16       ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 19:19         ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-11-18 19:17     ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-18 19:22       ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 19:56         ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-18 20:23           ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 21:05             ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 20:21       ` James Bottomley
2025-11-18 20:30         ` Linus Torvalds
2025-11-18 20:51         ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-18 21:10           ` James Bottomley
2025-11-18 22:34             ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-18 23:32               ` James Bottomley
2025-11-18 19:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-11-18 20:28   ` James Bottomley
2025-11-25 13:09 ` Jani Nikula
2025-11-25 14:25 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2025-11-25 15:32   ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-11-25 16:04   ` Steven Rostedt
2025-11-25 17:57   ` H. Peter Anvin
2025-12-31 12:17   ` Andy Shevchenko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=82a250e0-de9e-467a-882e-7acefbfd7c24@acm.org \
    --to=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox