From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BBBF8828; Fri, 2 May 2025 08:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746175400; cv=none; b=EZJZI9s8KS+27SaBZDyzJvnRb5f50uOf5gS5zt+YEkJxYPrLoIq1nUzZhgyPaPP9yqwHDs7YuKleI1F1tWlt/bMWk4VXWKUFK8bvVd/qqVRRZpSdaOgnxu2bwYUwttx16wsls3F1mRKXeC1frddeTaBosPFyV9oGcp8xUBUmC4M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746175400; c=relaxed/simple; bh=x2aq1XKqHbH6eCxQRGcIKB3OrIuNOfWz2k3HWH6042s=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LWUJDpIJyBZeYDKm8iLpY8nHDql6wFFHmfone03xyNFZVU/19dACXZoEee9ye1teORRQYGQFHHklY7jSMfKhKd43QwKzpji9eXHNjOCdEzbFgpdPeUXtU1TwmCpI1Qs7Nuw9GmkrJYiF9JN2t2Dc/M6Zct+IqaPQXSkoOofkRtE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZpkpJ5b0Nz6K5rg; Fri, 2 May 2025 16:38:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A06D41402FE; Fri, 2 May 2025 16:43:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.48.156.249) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 2 May 2025 10:43:14 +0200 Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 09:43:13 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Erick Karanja CC: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: endpoint: Use scoped_guard for manual mutex lock/unlock Message-ID: <20250502094313.000055d1@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <88bf352aab2b3ba68b2381b23706513e4cdea155.1746114596.git.karanja99erick@gmail.com> References: <88bf352aab2b3ba68b2381b23706513e4cdea155.1746114596.git.karanja99erick@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Thu, 1 May 2025 18:56:12 +0300 Erick Karanja wrote: > This refactor replaces manual mutex lock/unlock with scoped_guard() > in places where early exits use goto. Using scoped_guard() > avoids error-prone unlock paths and simplifies control flow. > > Signed-off-by: Erick Karanja > --- > drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c | 53 +++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > index beabea00af91..3f3ff36fa8ab 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > @@ -709,7 +709,6 @@ int pci_epc_add_epf(struct pci_epc *epc, struct pci_epf *epf, > { > struct list_head *list; > u32 func_no; > - int ret = 0; > > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(epc) || epf->is_vf) > return -EINVAL; > @@ -720,36 +719,32 @@ int pci_epc_add_epf(struct pci_epc *epc, struct pci_epf *epf, > if (type == SECONDARY_INTERFACE && epf->sec_epc) > return -EBUSY; > > - mutex_lock(&epc->list_lock); > - func_no = find_first_zero_bit(&epc->function_num_map, > - BITS_PER_LONG); > - if (func_no >= BITS_PER_LONG) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto ret; > - } > - > - if (func_no > epc->max_functions - 1) { > - dev_err(&epc->dev, "Exceeding max supported Function Number\n"); > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto ret; > + scoped_guard(mutex, &epc->list_lock) { This one is better, but using guard(mutex)(&epc->list_lock); Is going to make for an easier to read patch and lower indent etc. Unless there is some subsystem related reason that scoped_guard() is preferred then I'd go that way. > + func_no = find_first_zero_bit(&epc->function_num_map, > + BITS_PER_LONG); > + if (func_no >= BITS_PER_LONG) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (func_no > epc->max_functions - 1) { > + dev_err(&epc->dev, "Exceeding max supported Function Number\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + set_bit(func_no, &epc->function_num_map); > + if (type == PRIMARY_INTERFACE) { > + epf->func_no = func_no; > + epf->epc = epc; > + list = &epf->list; > + } else { > + epf->sec_epc_func_no = func_no; > + epf->sec_epc = epc; > + list = &epf->sec_epc_list; > + } > + > + list_add_tail(list, &epc->pci_epf); > } > > - set_bit(func_no, &epc->function_num_map); > - if (type == PRIMARY_INTERFACE) { > - epf->func_no = func_no; > - epf->epc = epc; > - list = &epf->list; > - } else { > - epf->sec_epc_func_no = func_no; > - epf->sec_epc = epc; > - list = &epf->sec_epc_list; > - } > - > - list_add_tail(list, &epc->pci_epf); > -ret: > - mutex_unlock(&epc->list_lock); > - > - return ret; > + return 0; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_epc_add_epf); >