linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] 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]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=MeNvd7_g0ZpCDt5pceLFm7bbsyx4G9XQ5GzP8qUR+vAwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 14:15:41 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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 v3] gpio: sim: simplify code with cleanup helpers

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:25 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 09:09:55PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:31 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 08:36:35PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > -     mutex_lock(&chip->lock);
> > > > -     __assign_bit(offset, chip->value_map, value);
> > > > -     mutex_unlock(&chip->lock);
> > > > +     scoped_guard(mutex, &chip->lock)
> > > > +             __assign_bit(offset, chip->value_map, value);
> > >
> > > But this can also be guarded.
> > >
> > >         guard(mutex)(&chip->lock);
> > >
> > >         __assign_bit(offset, chip->value_map, value);
> >
> > Come on, this is total bikeshedding! I could produce ten arguments in
> > favor of the scoped variant.
> >
> > Linus acked even the previous version and Peter says it looks right. I
> > will queue it unless some *real* issues come up.
>
> I still think this will be, besides being shorter and nicer to read,
> more consistent with other simple use of "guard(); return ..." cases.
>

Scoped guards have the advantage of making it very obvious where the
critical section ends. It's really down to personal preference,
there's nothing wrong with either option.

Bart