On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:55:56 +0200
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-10-22 at 16:10 -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 10:47 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Allows use of:
> > >
> > > CLASS(iio_claim_direct, claimed_dev)(indio_dev);
> > > if (IS_ERR(claimed_dev))
> > > return PTR_ERR(claimed_dev);
> > >
> > > st = iio_priv(claimed_dev);
> > >
> > > to automatically call iio_device_release_direct_mode() based on scope.
> > > Typically seen in combination with local device specific locks which
> > > are already have automated cleanup options via guard(mutex)(&st->lock)
> > > and scoped_guard(). Using both together allows most error handling to
> > > be automated.
> > >
> > > Note that whilst this pattern results in a struct iio_dev *claimed_dev
> > > that can be used, it is not necessary to do so as long as that pointer
> > > has been checked for errors as in the example.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 4 ++++
> > > include/linux/iio/iio.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-
> > > core.c
> > > index c77745b594bd..93bfad105eb5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> > > @@ -2065,6 +2065,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_device_claim_direct_mode);
> > > */
> > > void iio_device_release_direct_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> > > {
> > > + /* Auto cleanup can result in this being called with an ERR_PTR */
> > > + if (IS_ERR(indio_dev))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > mutex_unlock(&to_iio_dev_opaque(indio_dev)->mlock);
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_device_release_direct_mode);
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/iio/iio.h b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> > > index d0ce3b71106a..11c42170fda1 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > >
> > > #include <linux/device.h>
> > > #include <linux/cdev.h>
> > > +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > #include <linux/iio/types.h>
> > > /* IIO TODO LIST */
> > > @@ -644,6 +645,30 @@ int __devm_iio_device_register(struct device *dev,
> > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > int iio_push_event(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u64 ev_code, s64 timestamp);
> > > int iio_device_claim_direct_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
> > > void iio_device_release_direct_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
> > > +/*
> > > + * Auto cleanup version of iio_device_claim_direct_mode,
> > > + *
> > > + * CLASS(iio_claim_direct, claimed_dev)(indio_dev);
> > > + * if (IS_ERR(claimed_dev))
> > > + * return PTR_ERR(claimed_dev);
> > > + *
> > > + * st = iio_priv(claimed_dev);
> > > + * ....
> > > + */
> > > +DEFINE_CLASS(iio_claim_direct, struct iio_dev *,
> > > + iio_device_release_direct_mode(_T),
> > > + ({
> > > + struct iio_dev *dev;
> > > + int d = iio_device_claim_direct_mode(_T);
> > > +
> > > + if (d < 0)
> > > + dev = ERR_PTR(d);
> > > + else
> > > + dev = _T;
> > > + dev;
> > > + }),
> > > + struct iio_dev *_T);
> > > +
> > > int iio_device_claim_buffer_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
> > > void iio_device_release_buffer_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.42.0
> > >
> >
> > What is the benefit of exposing `claimed_dev` rather than just the int
> > return value? It seems like it just makes more noise in the error
> > check.
> >
>
> I don't really have a very strong opinion on this but what I really don't like
> much is the pattern:
>
> CLASS(type, ret), where the return value is an argument of the macro... It would
> be nice if we could just make it like:
>
> ret = guard(type)(...); //or any other variation of the guard() macro
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> the above could also be an error pointer or even have one variation of each. but
> yeah, that likely means changing the cleanup.h file and that might be out of
> scope for Jonathan's patch series.
>
I fully agree it's ugly and a little unintuitive but I don't see a way an "lvalue"
can work work cleanly (due to magic types under the hood) and I suspect we will
have to get used to this pattern.
There are lots of other examples in kernel that are similar DECLARE_BITMAP() etc
and we've kind of gotten used to those...
Jonathan
> - Nuno Sá
>
>
