From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/exec: Make the drm_exec_until_all_locked() macro more readable
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:52:57 +1000
Message-ID: <review-patch3-20260331092023.81616-4-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260331092023.81616-4-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
References: <20260331092023.81616-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> <20260331092023.81616-4-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Patch Review

**Looks good overall.** Using `__UNIQUE_ID` is cleaner than the `__PASTE(__=
drm_exec_, __LINE__)` approach, and `__maybe_unused` is more idiomatic than=
 `(void)`.

The refactoring into a `__drm_exec_until_all_locked` helper macro is well s=
tructured:

```c
#define __drm_exec_until_all_locked(exec, _label)
_label:
	for (void * __maybe_unused __drm_exec_retry_ptr; ({
		__drm_exec_retry_ptr =3D &&_label;
		drm_exec_cleanup(exec);
	});)
```

One nit: the commit message says "althrough" =E2=80=94 should be "although".

This also makes the `drm_exec_until_all_locked` macro simpler:
```c
#define drm_exec_until_all_locked(exec)
	__drm_exec_until_all_locked(exec, __UNIQUE_ID(drm_exec))
```

Splitting the label generation from the loop logic is a readability improve=
ment.

---

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer