On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 05:23:33PM +0100, Tim Wiederhake wrote:
On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 16:07 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 03:25:55PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:20:17PM +0100, Tim Wiederhake wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tim Wiederhake <twiederh@redhat.com> --- src/lxc/lxc_driver.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_driver.c b/src/lxc/lxc_driver.c index 7bc39120ee..42053de9c3 100644 --- a/src/lxc/lxc_driver.c +++ b/src/lxc/lxc_driver.c @@ -4045,9 +4045,9 @@ lxcDomainDetachDeviceHostdevUSBLive(virLXCDriver *driver, VIR_WARN("cannot deny device %s for domain %s: %s", dst, vm->def->name, virGetLastErrorMessage());
- virObjectLock(hostdev_mgr->activeUSBHostdevs); - virUSBDeviceListDel(hostdev_mgr->activeUSBHostdevs, usb); - virObjectUnlock(hostdev_mgr->activeUSBHostdevs); + VIR_WITH_OBJECT_LOCK_GUARD(hostdev_mgr->activeUSBHostdevs) { + virUSBDeviceListDel(hostdev_mgr->activeUSBHostdevs, usb); + }
Even nicer you can omit the curly brackets and make this a +2/-3 ;) Otherwise I guess we'd need some kind of stylistic guide to keep us consistent in this regard right from the start.
My preference is the keep the scope of the guarded section explicit using {} even with a 1 line body.
Same for me, fwiw.
OK, I don't really have a horse in this race. But in that case it would be nice to document it in our guidelines, maybe together with few words around the new macros. In a later patch for example.
Cheers, Tim