[RFC PATCH 09/14] KVM: arm64: Use guard() to cleanup usage of arm_pmus_lock

[Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>]

Get rid of some goto label patterns by using guard() to drop the
arm_pmus_lock when returning from a function.

Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 23 ++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
index 1ff343d43b61..b9756a0d054a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
@@ -819,26 +819,23 @@ void kvm_host_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
 	if (!pmuv3_implemented(kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit()))
 		return;
 
-	mutex_lock(&arm_pmus_lock);
+	guard(mutex)(&arm_pmus_lock);
 
 	entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!entry)
-		goto out_unlock;
+		return;
 
 	entry->arm_pmu = pmu;
 	list_add_tail(&entry->entry, &arm_pmus);
-
-out_unlock:
-	mutex_unlock(&arm_pmus_lock);
 }
 
 static struct arm_pmu *kvm_pmu_probe_armpmu(void)
 {
-	struct arm_pmu *tmp, *pmu = NULL;
 	struct arm_pmu_entry *entry;
+	struct arm_pmu *pmu;
 	int cpu;
 
-	mutex_lock(&arm_pmus_lock);
+	guard(mutex)(&arm_pmus_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * It is safe to use a stale cpu to iterate the list of PMUs so long as
@@ -859,17 +856,13 @@ static struct arm_pmu *kvm_pmu_probe_armpmu(void)
 	 */
 	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
 	list_for_each_entry(entry, &arm_pmus, entry) {
-		tmp = entry->arm_pmu;
+		pmu = entry->arm_pmu;
 
-		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &tmp->supported_cpus)) {
-			pmu = tmp;
-			break;
-		}
+		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &pmu->supported_cpus))
+			return pmu;
 	}
 
-	mutex_unlock(&arm_pmus_lock);
-
-	return pmu;
+	return NULL;
 }
 
 static u64 __compute_pmceid(struct arm_pmu *pmu, bool pmceid1)
-- 
2.39.5