Re: [PATCH v2 11/15] ACPI: platform_profile: Set profile for all registered handlers

[Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 10/29/2024 05:22, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> 
>> If multiple platform profile handlers have been registered then when
>> setting a profile verify that all profile handlers support the requested
>> profile and set it to each handler.
>>
>> If this fails for any given handler, revert all profile handlers back to
>> balanced and log an error into the kernel ring buffer.
>>
>> Tested-by: Matthew Schwartz <matthew.schwartz@linux.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> index a83842f05022b..db2ebd0393cf7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>> @@ -105,37 +105,42 @@ static ssize_t platform_profile_store(struct device *dev,
>>   			    struct device_attribute *attr,
>>   			    const char *buf, size_t count)
>>   {
>> +	struct platform_profile_handler *handler;
>> +	unsigned long choices;
>>   	int err, i;
>>   
>> -	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&profile_lock);
>> -	if (err)
>> -		return err;
>> -
>> -	if (!cur_profile) {
>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>> -		return -ENODEV;
>> -	}
>> -
>>   	/* Scan for a matching profile */
>>   	i = sysfs_match_string(profile_names, buf);
>>   	if (i < 0) {
>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	/* Check that platform supports this profile choice */
>> -	if (!test_bit(i, cur_profile->choices)) {
>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> -	}
>> +	scoped_cond_guard(mutex_intr, return -ERESTARTSYS, &profile_lock) {
> 
> You made guard() conversions in the earlier patch but for some reason
> left scoped_cond_guard() ones mixed into other changes still. Is there
> a very good reason for that?
> 

Using scoped_cond_guard() requires changing the indentation which meant 
a bit of back and forth with code coming and going.  If you think it 
makes more sense to split up even considering the indentation changes 
I'll do another set of patches for the scoped_cond_guard changes only.