> 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. Thanks for your update suggestion. Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments in this software area? > 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; How do you think about to use the following code variant then? if (!ret) 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. How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small source code adjustment will be appropriate? Regards, Markus -- 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
