On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:04:49 +0100
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 14:24 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:10:28 +0100
> > Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Use the new cleanup magic for handling mutexes in IIO. This allows us to
> > > greatly simplify some code paths.
> > >
> > > While at it, also use __free(kfree) where allocations are done and drop
> > > obvious comment in iio_channel_read_min().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi Nuno
> >
> > Series looks very nice. One trivial thing inline - I can tidy that up whilst
> > applying if nothing else comes up.
> >
> > Given this obviously touches a lot of core code, so even though simple it's
> > high risk for queuing up late. I also have a complex mess already queued up
> > for the coming merge window. Hence I'm going to hold off on applying this
> > series until the start of the next cycle.
> >
> > Nothing outside IIO is going to depend on it, so it's rather simpler decision
> > to hold it than for the ones that add new general purpose infrastructure.
> >
> >
>
> Seems reasonable... It may even give us some time to see how the cond_guard()
> and scoped_cond_guard() will end up.
Absolutely - thankfully converting to the suggestions Linus made will be straight
forwards, so hopefully the worst that happens is a complex merge, or some
fixing up to do afterwards.
>
> >
> >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_read_channel_attribute);
> > >
> > > @@ -757,29 +711,24 @@ int iio_read_channel_processed_scale(struct
> > > iio_channel *chan, int *val,
> > > struct iio_dev_opaque *iio_dev_opaque = to_iio_dev_opaque(chan-
> > > >indio_dev);
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - mutex_lock(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
> > > - if (!chan->indio_dev->info) {
> > > - ret = -ENODEV;
> > > - goto err_unlock;
> > > - }
> > > + guard(mutex)(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
> > > + if (!chan->indio_dev->info)
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > if (iio_channel_has_info(chan->channel, IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED)) {
> > > ret = iio_channel_read(chan, val, NULL,
> > > IIO_CHAN_INFO_PROCESSED);
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > - goto err_unlock;
> > > + return ret;
> > > *val *= scale;
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > > } else {
> > could drop the else.
> >
> > > ret = iio_channel_read(chan, val, NULL, IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW);
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > - goto err_unlock;
> > > + return ret;
> > > ret = iio_convert_raw_to_processed_unlocked(chan, *val,
> > > val,
> > > scale);
> > return iio_convert_raw_to_proc...
> >
>
> Hmm, unless I completely misunderstood your comments on v2, this was exactly
> what I had but you recommended to leave the else branch :).
>
That was a younger me :) Either way is fine.
Jonathan
> - Nuno Sá
>
