Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] iio: core: Add cleanup.h support for iio_device_claim_*()

David Lechner
2026-01-16T22:03:59Z

On 1/6/26 2:06 AM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> Add guard classes for iio_device_claim_*() conditional locks. This will
> aid drivers write safer and cleaner code when dealing with some common
> patterns.
>
> These classes are not meant to be used directly by drivers (hence the
> __priv__ prefix). Instead, documented wrapper macros are provided to
> enforce the use of ACQUIRE() or guard() semantics and avoid the
> problematic scoped guard.
>
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
> ---
> include/linux/iio/iio.h | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/iio/iio.h b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> index d8af0456f966..c795f731f2d8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include <linux/align.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/cdev.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> #include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> #include <linux/minmax.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> @@ -740,6 +741,76 @@ static inline bool iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
> */
> #define iio_device_release_buffer_mode(indio_dev) __iio_dev_mode_unlock(indio_dev)
>
> +/*
> + * These classes are not meant to be used directly by drivers (hence the
> + * __priv__ prefix). Instead, documented wrapper macros are provided bellow to
> + * enforce the use of ACQUIRE() or guard() semantics and avoid the problematic
> + * scoped guard variants.
> + */
> +DEFINE_GUARD(__priv__iio_dev_mode_lock, struct iio_dev *,
> + __iio_dev_mode_lock(_T), __iio_dev_mode_unlock(_T));
> +DEFINE_GUARD_COND(__priv__iio_dev_mode_lock, _try_direct,
> + iio_device_claim_direct(_T));
> +
> +/**
> + * IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE(_dev, _var) - Tries to acquire the direct mode
> + * lock with automatic release

I don't think it is usual to put the function parameters in the
doc comment like this. They don't match the actual names anyway.

> + * @dev: IIO device instance
> + * @claim: Variable identifier to store acquire result
> + *
> + * Tries to acquire the direct mode lock with cleanup ACQUIRE() semantics and
> + * automatically releases it at the end of the scope. It most be always paired
> + * with IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_ERR(), for example::
> + *
> + * IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE(indio_dev, claim);
> + * if (IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED(&claim))
> + * return -EBUSY;
> + *
> + * ...or a more common scenario (notice scope the braces)::
> + *
> + * switch() {
> + * case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW: {
> + * IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE(indio_dev, claim);
> + * if (IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED(&claim))
> + * return -EBUSY;
> + *
> + * ...
> + * }
> + * case IIO_CHAN_INFO_SCALE:
> + * ...
> + * ...
> + * }
> + *
> + * Context: Can sleep
> + */
> +#define IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE(dev, claim) \
> + ACQUIRE(__priv__iio_dev_mode_lock_try_direct, claim)(dev)
> +
> +/**
> + * IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED() - ACQUIRE_ERR() wrapper
> + * @claim_ptr: Pointer to the claim variable passed to IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_*_MODE()
> + *
> + * Return: true if acquired the mode failed, otherwise false.
> + */
> +#define IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED(claim_ptr) \
> + ACQUIRE_ERR(__priv__iio_dev_mode_lock_try_direct, claim_ptr)
> +

If we always have to add the & at the call site, could we just
put that in the macro instead? Then the parameter would just be
claim instead of claim_ptr.