On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:02:39 +0000
Guillaume Stols <gstols@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Switching to scoped_guard simplifies the code and avoids to take care to
> unlock the mutex in case of premature return.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Stols <gstols@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/adc/ad7606.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7606.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7606.c
> index 3a417595294f..e3426287edf6 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7606.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7606.c
> @@ -69,19 +69,18 @@ static int ad7606_reg_access(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> struct ad7606_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> int ret;
>
> - mutex_lock(&st->lock);
> - if (readval) {
> - ret = st->bops->reg_read(st, reg);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - goto err_unlock;
> - *readval = ret;
> - ret = 0;
> - } else {
> - ret = st->bops->reg_write(st, reg, writeval);
> + scoped_guard(mutex, &st->lock) {
> + if (readval) {
> + ret = st->bops->reg_read(st, reg);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + *readval = ret;
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + return st->bops->reg_write(st, reg, writeval);
> + }
> }
> -err_unlock:
> - mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
> - return ret;
> + unreachable();
Unless you are going to add more code in this function later in the series
then a
guard(mutex)(&st->lock); is more appropriate in this function
as the scope is effectively the whole function. Also avoids the always
ugly need for an unreachable() marking.
I'm not sure what the build bot warning means though.
Otherwise looks good to me
J
