Hi Markus,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:09:26 +0200
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:
> …
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/syscon.c
> …
> > +static struct syscon *syscon_from_regmap(struct regmap *regmap)
> +{
> > + struct syscon *entry, *syscon = NULL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&syscon_list_slock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(entry, &syscon_list, list)
> …
> > + spin_unlock(&syscon_list_slock);
> > +
> > + return syscon;
> > +}
> …
>
> Under which circumstances would you become interested to apply a statement
> like “guard(spinlock)(&syscon_list_slock);”?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc7/source/include/linux/spinlock.h#L561
>
I used the spin_{lock,unlock}() pattern call already present in syscon.c.
Of course, I can add a new patch in this series converting syscon.c to
the guard() family and use guard() in my introduced lock/unlock.
Lee, any opinion ?
Best regards,
Hervé
