[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c4b3fa79-97ff-4f5b-a3a0-f1c24e9349be@baylibre.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 12:13:53 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@...log.com>,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
Shrikant Raskar <raskar.shree97@...il.com>,
Per-Daniel Olsson <perdaniel.olsson@...s.com>
Cc: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] iio: core: Add and export __iio_dev_mode_lock()
On 12/27/25 11:51 AM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue Dec 23, 2025 at 12:19 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 12/11/25 8:45 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:
>>> Add infallible wrappers around the internal IIO mode lock.
>>
>> Not sure what "infallible" is supposed to mean in this context. Maybe
>> referring to autocleanup?
>
> I meant wrappers that do not fail i.e. return void. Should I word it
> differently?
>
Ah, I think you mean "unconditional" - as in "not a conditional
lock".
In the body of the commit message, you could spell this out more that
normally, this is used as a conditional lock, but to prepare for autocleanup
and we need an unconditional lock for the base guard() to be extended
with the conditional ACQUIRE().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists