linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] gpio: sim: simplify code with cleanup helpers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 17:31:04 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] gpio: sim: simplify code with cleanup helpers

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:28:38PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 4:24 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 03:14:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > >       struct gpio_sim_device *dev = gpio_sim_bank_get_device(bank);
> > >       struct gpio_sim_chip_name_ctx ctx = { bank->swnode, page };
> > > -     int ret;
> > >
> > > -     mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
> > > +     guard(mutex)(&dev->lock);
> > > +
> > >       if (gpio_sim_device_is_live_unlocked(dev))
> > > -             ret = device_for_each_child(&dev->pdev->dev, &ctx,
> > > -                                         gpio_sim_emit_chip_name);
> > > -     else
> > > -             ret = sprintf(page, "none\n");
> > > -     mutex_unlock(&dev->lock);
> > > +             return device_for_each_child(&dev->pdev->dev, &ctx,
> > > +                                          gpio_sim_emit_chip_name);
> > >
> > > -     return ret;
> > > +     return sprintf(page, "none\n");
> >
> > I looked at the original and at the change and maybe it could be done as
> >
> 
> What's the difference?!
> 
> >         struct device *parent = &dev->pdev->dev; // Naming?
> >         bool live;
> >
> >         live = gpio_sim_device_is_live_unlocked(dev);
> >         if (!live)
> >                 return sprintf(page, "none\n");
> >
> >         return device_for_each_child(parent, &ctx, gpio_sim_emit_chip_name);

No wrapped lines.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko