Re: [RESEND PATCH v4] devres: Refactor using guards

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:15:21PM +0200, Andrea Calabrese wrote:
> Code refactoring using the recent guard and scoped_guard macros
> for automatic cleanup of the spinlocks. This does not change the
> effective behaviour of the kernel, but guarantees a cleaned-up exit from
> each lock, automatically avoiding potential deadlocks.

The "guarantee" is there today, right?  So this isn't really anything
other than a "convert to use new apis", right?

If so, I need to see a LOT of verification that the output is the same,
and that it has been properly tested.  Converting working code for no
real reason other than "let's change this!" isn't always a good idea.

For new code going forward, or if you are touching the same area, sure,
that makes sense, but be careful about stuff like this.

> Signed-off-by: Andrea Calabrese <andrea.calabrese@amarulasolutions.com>
> 
> ---
> Diff from V3: as Greg KH and Lucas Stach noticed, there was a
> behavioural change between the two versions: I used guard(spinlock),
> while the expected behaviour should have come from a spinlock_irqsave
> guard. This has been fixed.

No diffstat?

thanks,

greg k-h