Hi,
On 25-10-17 16:33, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:26:29 +0200
Add a jump target so that a call of the function "mutex_unlock" is mostly
stored at the end of these function implementations.
Replace five calls by goto statements.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c | 32 ++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c b/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c
index 870f92ef61c2..f2a85a11a5e4 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c
@@ -554,18 +554,15 @@ static int bmc150_accel_get_axis(struct bmc150_accel_data *data,
mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, true);
- if (ret < 0) {
- mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto unlock_after_failure;
ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BMC150_ACCEL_AXIS_TO_REG(axis),
&raw_val, sizeof(raw_val));
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(dev, "Error reading axis %d\n", axis);
bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
- mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
- return ret;
+ goto unlock_after_failure;
}
*val = sign_extend32(le16_to_cpu(raw_val) >> chan->scan_type.shift,
chan->scan_type.realbits - 1);
@@ -575,6 +572,10 @@ static int bmc150_accel_get_axis(struct bmc150_accel_data *data,
return ret;
return IIO_VAL_INT;
+
+unlock_after_failure:
+ mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
+ return ret;
}
static int bmc150_accel_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a single unlock call
at the end, not a separate one in in error label.
Could e.g. change this:
ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
return IIO_VAL_INT;
}
To:
ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
if (ret < 0)
goto unlock;
ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
unlock:
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
return ret;
}
And also use the unlock label in the other cases, this is actually
quite a normal pattern. I see little use in a patch like this if there
are still 2 unlock paths after the patch.
Regards,
Hans
@@ -1170,28 +1171,23 @@ static int bmc150_accel_trigger_set_state(struct iio_trigger *trig,
mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
if (t->enabled == state) {
- mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
- return 0;
+ ret = 0;
+ goto unlock;
}
if (t->setup) {
ret = t->setup(t, state);
- if (ret < 0) {
- mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto unlock;
}
ret = bmc150_accel_set_interrupt(data, t->intr, state);
- if (ret < 0) {
- mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto unlock;
t->enabled = state;
-
+unlock:
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
-
return ret;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
