[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aIBOqSkbQ/1sub0M@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:53:29 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, <joro@...tes.org>, <will@...nel.org>,
<robin.murphy@....com>, <rafael@...nel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
<pjaroszynski@...dia.com>, <vsethi@...dia.com>, <helgaas@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] iommu: Introduce iommu_dev_reset_prepare()
and iommu_dev_reset_done()
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 10:21:41AM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 7/23/25 05:58, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > guard(mutex)(&group->mutex);
> > I recall Baolu mentioned that Joerg might not like the guard style
> > so I am keeping mutex_lock/unlock().
>
> You may be misremembering or mixing something up. I didn't see Joerg
> express that opinion. :-)
>
> My understanding is that cleanup.h could be used in new or refactored
> code, but people don't like converting existing lock/unlock mechanisms
> for no real benefit.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Let's do the guard() way then :)
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists