On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 13:09:44 +0000 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2025-01-05 at 17:25 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Note I haven't attempted to CC relevant people for specific drivers. > > I'll do that for a non RFC version if we move forwards. > > > > Effectively two linked things in this series: > > > > 1) Ripping out iio_device_claim_direct_scoped() > > 2) Enabling use of sparse to check the claim is always released. > > > > The iio_device_claim_direct_scoped() was an interesting experiment > > built on conditional scoped guards, but it has been the source of > > a range of esoteric build warnings and is awkward to use. > > > > Curious about one thing... David, wouldn't your work on 'if_not_cond_guard()' > help with this messy scoped calls? I saw it was not merged yet though... Was it > dropped for some reason? Link in cover letter. David's work got merged then reverted :( https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wi8C2yZF_y_T180-v+dSZAhps5QghS_2tKfn-+xAghYPQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Basically it seems to be impossible to contrive a way of doing scoped condition cleanup neatly. I was also hoping we could transition to the if_cond_guard() approach to solve the scoped problems. :( Jonathan > > Anyways, I do like this approach specially due to 2) which, likely, it would not > be straightforward with automatic cleanups (if feasible at all). > > I plan to go over the whole series in the next few days... > > - Nuno Sá > >
