Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] gpiolib: remove gpiochip_is_requested()

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:46:20PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 5:46 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 02:46:30PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

> > > -     cpy = kstrdup(label, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > -     if (!cpy)
> > > -             return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > +     scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &gpio_lock) {
> > > +             if (!test_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &desc->flags))
> > > +                     return NULL;
> >
> > > +             cpy = kstrdup(desc->label, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +             if (!cpy)
> > > +                     return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
> > You just introduced these lines earlier in the series, and here you moved
> > them again. With guard() instead it may be kept in a better shape.
> >
> 
> I wanted to limit the critical section to a minimum hence scoped
> variant. And this will go away as soon as we have a desc lock so it's
> temporary anyway. What matters to me is how the code looks when
> sending it to Torvalds. On the off chance that we don't get the
> locking rework merged in time for v6.8, I want this to at least be
> under the existing lock.

guard() here is equally scoped, no? And what's wrong with that when gets
to Torvalds? He accepted your guard() cases last time IIRC.

> > > +     }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko