Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] KVM: arm64: Use guard()/scoped_guard() in arm64 KVM EL1 code

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:24:55 +0100,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 10:23, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 07:59:17 +0100,
> > tabba@google.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Convert the manual mutex_lock()/spin_lock() pairs in
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/{pkvm,arm,mmu,reset,psci}.c to guard(mutex),
> > > guard(spinlock) and scoped_guard(), dropping unlock-only goto labels in
> > > favour of direct returns. Centralised cleanup gotos that still serve
> > > other resources are preserved.
> > >
> > > reset.c uses scoped_guard() rather than guard() so the lock covers only
> > > the small read/update window inside kvm_reset_vcpu(), leaving the rest
> > > of the function outside the critical section.
> >
> > To be brutally honest, I don't think this sort of widespread changes
> > bring us anything. This is just churn.
> >
> > Sure, if you are reworking a particular bit of code that is goto-heavy
> > for the purpose of error handling, this has the potential to cleanup
> > the code *while you are changing it*.
> >
> > But doing it for the sake of doing it? I think we have bigger fish to
> > fry right now.
> 
> I understand what you mean. Would you like me to drop all of the guard
> patches, or only those that go beyond the code changed in this series?

The latter. I'm fine with conversion that happens while the code is
being reworked.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.