Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] iio: adc: ad7124: use guard(mutex) to simplify return paths

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 21:07:58 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:41:08PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> > On 9/12/25 12:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 09:19:36AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:  
> > >> On 9/11/25 11:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:42 AM David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:  
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Use guard(mutex) in a couple of functions to allow direct returns. This
> > >>>> simplifies the code a bit and will make later changes easier.  
> > >>>
> > >>> From this and the patch it's unclear if cleanup.h was already there or
> > >>> not. If not, this patch misses it, if yes, the commit message should
> > >>> be different.  
> > >>
> > >> cleanup.h is already there. I'm not sure what would need to be different
> > >> in the commit message though.  
> > > 
> > > I expect something like "finish converting the driver to use guard()()..."  
> > 
> > cleanup.h was previously included for __free(), so the guard() stuff
> > is all new.  
> 
> Okay, then something like "Cover the lock handling using guard()()..."
> The point I'm trying to make is that "Use $FOO API/etc" without new header
> being included either:
> 1) missing inclusion (proxying);
> 2) start using of a new API from the library/header that we already use for
> another API, but without mentioning that.
> 
I went with the far from subtle solution of adding a line to the commit log
that says

cleanup.h is already included for prior use of __free()

Seemed like that would be enough for Andy's request and so I added
his tag (as given to the cover letter).

Jonathan