[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220416160725.51f0b8f0@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:07:25 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Cosmin Tanislav <demonsingur@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] iio: adc: ad4130: add AD4130 driver
> ...
>
> > >>>> + out:
> > >>>
> > >>> out_unlock: ?
> > >>> Ditto for similar cases.
> > >>
> > >> There's a single label in the function, and there's a mutex being
> > >> taken, and, logically, the mutex must be released on the exit path.
> > >> It's clear what the label is for to me.
> > >
> > > Wasn't clear to me until I went to the end of each of them (who
> > > guarantees that's the case for all of them?).
> >
> > Let's hope other people looking at that code will be able to figure out
> > what that label does then.
>
> OK. Let the maintainer decide.
Slight preference for giving the extra info of out_unlock, but not critical.
(note I haven't read the code yet so might change my mind :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists