On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Convert any entry of mutex lock/unlock to guard API and simplify code. > > Thanks that you would like to support another bit of collateral evolution. > > * Would you get into the mood to benefit any more from applications > of scope-based resource management? > > * Will development interests accordingly grow to adjust further source code places > according to known pairs of function calls? > > > > With the use of guard API, handling for selttest functions can be > > selftest? > > > > greatly simplified. > > I find cover letters helpful for patch series. > > > … > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp5521.c > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ > > * Milo(Woogyom) Kim <milo.kim@xxxxxx> > > */ > > > > +#include <linux/cleanup.h> > > #include <linux/delay.h> > > #include <linux/firmware.h> > … > > I guess that this proposed addition is not directly needed here (and related places) > because the header file is included for the macro call “DEFINE_GUARD(mutex, …)” already. > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L22 > > > … > > @@ -185,9 +186,9 @@ static ssize_t lp5521_selftest(struct device *dev, > > struct lp55xx_chip *chip = led->chip; > > int ret; > > > > - mutex_lock(&chip->lock); > > + guard(mutex, &chip->lock); > > + > > ret = lp5521_run_selftest(chip, buf); > > - mutex_unlock(&chip->lock); > > > > return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", ret ? "FAIL" : "OK"); > > } > … > > How do you think about to omit any blank lines (also at similar places)? Please do not omit the blank lines. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
