From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yx1-f53.google.com (mail-yx1-f53.google.com [74.125.224.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CB113909B9 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 22:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.224.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772490895; cv=none; b=ey8vvNATh9hGqxFkW58/UWqW3CzbnwVE+1Jnf3ej4d1n5i205acjtCh0xC9NoAFGWhaAky4Jts6Ge9kT5UHSF7xCoj5LbYtxOOq9xMXhcaX4n91zGQiyIFxIgn0dzup3EcTUhs73TZ69XcPQuxkHSQTUXdiD8QHSX9BtE7ZmtLo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772490895; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Uz+tv28uguan4+TVeoqiw4dqH6wrGaL14lOoxbz5uo4=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=ivQwzZYeLPdAWYPD01iPY9nQYmGhCi5Tq6XVwdzKQks0PwqewYcInP7sLEwo6t/ZsnONWS6Mz0Qf1PloFBlQcPd411G3K27zoSXBRaEdJZn/HtN0eVrx9DgIjKAOs/Ht4dxgJWL6zDYPz/1KpyoKWLHiAj+PcH0uc26y0NfK3gI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=R+IRraMY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.224.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="R+IRraMY" Received: by mail-yx1-f53.google.com with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-64acd19e1dfso4445629d50.0 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:34:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1772490893; x=1773095693; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=/r5SJBYcjwBqnt4UbsldqIEQalNfi3J745CT2W0Ye0s=; b=R+IRraMY4DpwuyB1v8Dzg6RJnSx/z53pe6HyLDPn456oHb8AiDW7jpzU0hKqdG1uC2 Njew2o8/strK9NSxAxe6T4W9sw5Rxz7eAAxFVyplTx2ik5u62m4iWJdLksZisH81jJrR 7gH3O1DQDcN5AoSMAZ0UFIthXgU+CBBKF6R/cDQHx7FG8q3a6OWkmsuasFjM8DkpuDq6 SU34dK4Qp8AwiMVEK38RmgNY/OPOvwfuPaCVjCAsjgHJNEeQzGQjpdyqfWVS+Nh69fVi uUvK6LF8iE59Jnhe+8Pbfs031sn4KSnPOUKXdYo5Z4BW4KofOhbnEPn5R3T6UXdaYmCP VU2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1772490893; x=1773095693; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/r5SJBYcjwBqnt4UbsldqIEQalNfi3J745CT2W0Ye0s=; b=HIK6nGj2UZH1Jo6WHBWOAE0a65IxMSk/EPbZ3mTx8IIU5uSaWfkkt8XyoJG39UzhmE tehpYCZKcwXNp6DzRCWfhf3oWM3BfHF6O5f4JCy3D61EA1E5uzcCfYwG9DPa6/hdNyBz 3xYTZZdIAZGLsCtBHD2eGV4K4GgIj3tkU1HW2lCDMsbTfZSLwvQZ2/C+M7AU0Xc//zeF z44iKV2kYXsyNr2wa3griuWwVaJ4GXTHMKzYjQ4xWGiv/L7qG8gyrqp7LczxFP+lXHgw iJI5MX2wh9iMWVmK8qUoEhrP+rT8slF4/G71mnp8O0SuKHCe8KyKBl/BeOMpTyYztHlR /eyQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWnSfRnVq7/rCqFRRFbJhAfasGVqnKIpLgFVysENWHctxikDENfOQiRcxo6kmLV0QfdZXONSCfQSmE=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy91/n5gZVtqsfpXkSgd9CbMRh9brQaQ7IMeK2ucxNPCrFBwTed MhxCFxPM9mGMGDY0GaLlbTQjQ/VUyDLX67M6TdCK4XTLSzTVfgmqF60G X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzzJX3MWJNJf0ius7rP5LsjVQGQcQkC85baqcHptVd/huV/hwFXe87cyMjg0C9a kwpzwHvYL2nlYrcLYIYt5AEokRVvSHYh5uNx/xxehJROhP4jXNraXiK9Zi1iL+YqISdE+UtWGAH rYqfCB21b5zDSpRXG4JSotkV7c5ljdmvvGCzGqZfyKKbSyDHLmpXGNmpCmO1/uBInDkJA13p35x TElLStBiM3kvBwejbdX5rgUtG4NuS9OzGd1Z3dluQtTrL5lueInp+9uLyg+xtDEdSp3LxMeA2bf Am7r8qFrvRyVZNJuEVyObWx1+CI7XTdHBzjZ+JIwXMMXm5fCwuqo3lRub5CCToYa9YM5LIMC7vz 3bfo6YS9n39xS+5pyVgN/N/r1xBQyP9x7MBXJotzQ9v56sar/GsG1ziPSiyJyzp37KstwqyCj3Z DcaT4loetoLFMHrX4cO0ReLITqbj+WmCW3e4gOJrppeweZNPItr9Et56+4WbPNO6+7qUrVSJKeR gYRDQvEJ5bWTYWe2LPSlWkxrEYNNcV3 X-Received: by 2002:a05:690e:118e:b0:64c:ec37:ab73 with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-64cec37adf7mr686471d50.82.1772490893346; Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2601:7c0:c37c:4c00::5c0b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 956f58d0204a3-64cb7650fb7sm6033124d50.22.2026.03.02.14.34.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:34:53 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:34:34 -0600 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iio: filter: admv8818: Simplify locking with guard() From: "Ethan Tidmore" To: "David Lechner" , "Ethan Tidmore" , "Antoniu Miclaus" , "Jonathan Cameron" , "Lars-Peter Clausen" , "Michael Hennerich" Cc: =?utf-8?q?Nuno_S=C3=A1?= , "Andy Shevchenko" , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2 References: <20260227061424.1135505-1-ethantidmore06@gmail.com> <20260227061424.1135505-3-ethantidmore06@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On Fri Feb 27, 2026 at 10:08 AM CST, David Lechner wrote: > On 2/27/26 12:14 AM, Ethan Tidmore wrote: >> Use guard() instead of manual locking to simplify code. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Tidmore >> --- > > >> @@ -352,13 +344,8 @@ static int __admv8818_read_hpf_freq(struct admv8818= _state *st, u64 *hpf_freq) >> =20 >> static int admv8818_read_hpf_freq(struct admv8818_state *st, u64 *hpf_f= req) >> { >> - int ret; >> - >> - mutex_lock(&st->lock); >> - ret =3D __admv8818_read_hpf_freq(st, hpf_freq); >> - mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >> - >> - return ret; >> + guard(mutex)(&st->lock); >> + return __admv8818_read_hpf_freq(st, hpf_freq); >> } > > admv8818_read_hpf_freq() is the only caller of __admv8818_read_hpf_freq() > so we can drop the wrapper, move the guard to __admv8818_read_hpf_freq() > and rename it to admv8818_read_hpf_freq(). > > I didn't check all functions, but might be others places where we can do > this as well. So this can be easily done with a few wrappers but these two functions have this odd scenario: guard(mutex)(&st->lock); ret =3D __admv8818_hpf_select(st, hpf_corner_target); if (ret) return ret; return __admv8818_lpf_select(st, lpf_corner_target); Where if I deleted that guard() and just made those hold the lock separately this would be a behaviour change. Wondering if there was a nice way to get around this? Thanks, ET