[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bd91a7f-f9d4-fa00-f254-5caaddbbe18a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:02:23 +0200 (EET)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>, Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>,
Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
"Luke D . Jones" <luke@...nes.dev>, Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Alexis Belmonte <alexbelm48@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Ai Chao <aichao@...inos.cn>, Gergo Koteles <soyer@....hu>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MICROSOFT SURFACE PLATFORM PROFILE DRIVER" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THINKPAD ACPI EXTRAS DRIVER" <ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>,
Matthew Schwartz <matthew.schwartz@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] ACPI: platform_profile: Use guard(mutex) for
register/unregister
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> guard(mutex) can be used to automatically release mutexes when going
> out of scope.
>
> Tested-by: Matthew Schwartz <matthew.schwartz@...ux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 19 ++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> index 0c60fc970b6e8..81928adccfade 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
> @@ -180,41 +180,34 @@ int platform_profile_register(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof)
> {
> int err;
>
> - mutex_lock(&profile_lock);
> + guard(mutex)(&profile_lock);
> /* We can only have one active profile */
> - if (cur_profile) {
> - mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
> + if (cur_profile)
> return -EEXIST;
> - }
>
> /* Sanity check the profile handler field are set */
> if (!pprof || bitmap_empty(pprof->choices, PLATFORM_PROFILE_LAST) ||
> - !pprof->profile_set || !pprof->profile_get) {
> - mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
> + !pprof->profile_set || !pprof->profile_get)
Could you please also correct the misleading indentation here while
touching the line.
> return -EINVAL;
> - }
>
> err = sysfs_create_group(acpi_kobj, &platform_profile_group);
> - if (err) {
> - mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
> + if (err)
> return err;
> - }
> list_add_tail(&pprof->list, &platform_profile_handler_list);
>
> cur_profile = pprof;
> - mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_register);
>
> int platform_profile_remove(struct platform_profile_handler *pprof)
> {
> + guard(mutex)(&profile_lock);
> +
> list_del(&pprof->list);
>
> sysfs_remove_group(acpi_kobj, &platform_profile_group);
> - mutex_lock(&profile_lock);
Now this something I don't want to sneak in with a transformation change
like this. What is a clear extension of the critical section should be in
own patch with proper justification given.
If that was not intentional, you can sill place guard() where the original
mutex_lock() was, it doesn't have to be on the first line of a function.
> cur_profile = NULL;
> - mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_profile_remove);
>
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists