Re: [PATCH v2] staging: nvec: use guard(mutex) in nvec_write_sync()

[Jeremy Dean Clifton <gservice341@gmail.com>]

On 10/13/26 12:15 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:29:26PM +0000, Jeremy Dean Clifton wrote:
>> The three return paths of nvec_write_sync() each release
>> sync_write_mutex with explicit unlock calls.
>>
>> Use guard(mutex) to unlock the lock automatically on any return
>> path.
>>
>> This removes the three mutex_unlock() calls.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Dean Clifton <deaner92@yahoo.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>>   - Reword the commit message to state the motivation and to make
>>     clear that removing the mutex_unlock() calls is the result of
>>     the change (Julia Lawall).
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261012171312.5998-1-deaner92@yahoo.com/
> 
> Please read the archives for why I will not take guard() rewrites of
> staging drivers (nor do I want to see you use a LLM in here either.)
> 
> sorry,
> 
> greg k-h

Hello Greg + Everyone,


It turns out that I was unknowingly subscribed to this list and started 
creating patches for the Outreachy group without ever having submitted 
an application to Outreachy. I just wanted to learn how to contribute to 
the Linux Kernel and I saw https://kernelnewbies.org/ as a direct 
connection to Outreachy.

While I am technically not part of this cohort, I can still review 
patches. What is preferred?

I assume that the same rules apply outside of Outreachy? No LLMs and no 
guard() rewrites.

Jeremy