On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, Christian Marangi wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 05:55:28PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > … > > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lp5521.c > > > … > > > > @@ -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); > > > > > > How did you come to the conclusion to try such a syntax variant out? > > > > > > Would the following statement (with additional parentheses) be more appropriate? > > > > > > guard(mutex)(&chip->lock); > > > > Yes, that's the fix. > > > > I'm more concerned with how untested patches came to being submitted. > > > > Hi Lee, > profoundly sorry for the happening... Obviusly something went wrong in > me changing branch and the driver wasn't actually compiled in the > test... > > Also with the comments from Markus I tought this needed more changes and > I leaved out for a bit, so again I'm really sorry that this manage to > reach next. No worries. > What is the next step? Any way I can pose a fix on this and apologize for > the situation? I'll fix it up and test it. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
