[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260209115927.GM3529712@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 11:59:27 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Mao Jinlong <quic_jinlmao@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] coresight: Unify error handling in
coresight_register()
On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 11:28:19AM +0000, Coresight ML wrote:
[...]
> > Probably a better way to clean this up would be to pull out a function for
> > all the stuff that needs to be locked and use guard(). Then do the stuff
> > that doesn't need to be locked after that function. Either way it doesn't
> > look wrong.
>
> If so, although locking is not a concern, the device_register() failures
> still need to release platform data particularly. That means we still
> need extra flag (or returned error) to indicate if it is a
> device_register() failure.
>
> I understand we don't want multiple places for mutex release. It is
> not bad to keep the "registered" flag and drop this patch.
Think again, I found we still need the refactor for the failure
from etm_perf_add_symlink_sink(). This can be unified to call
coresight_unregister() for error handling.
I will send a new series for review.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists