On Mon, 13 May 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 05:33:10PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > On 5/13/24 5:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 03:18:10PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >> On 5/13/24 2:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > >>>> +static int dell_uart_bl_command(struct dell_uart_backlight *dell_bl,
> > >>>> + const u8 *cmd, int cmd_len,
> > >>>> + u8 *resp, int resp_max_len)
> > >>>> +{
> > >>>> + int ret;
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + ret = mutex_lock_killable(&dell_bl->mutex);
> > >>>
> > >>> Can't be called via cleanup.h?
> > >>
> > >> I prefer to have the locking explicit rather then use cleanup.h .
> > >
> > > Hmm... interesting, so you push-back the cleanup.h usage?
> >
> > I'm in favor of the guard(mutex)(&smne_mutex); syntax, but this
> > is a mutex_lock_killable() for which that does not work AFAIK.
> >
> > So in this case AFAICT we would need to use the cleanup stuff manually
> > and in that case I believe that in that case just sticking with
> > the current code is better.
>
> There is scoped_cond_guard().
> But there is no DEFINE_GUARD_COND() for mutex_lock_killable().
Is there a way to return the original error code with scoped_cond_guard()
or does that it force overriding the original return value with a
hard-coded one provided by the caller which seems a step backwards?
--
i.
