From: Sanjay Chitroda <sanjayembeddedse@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc: jic23@kernel.org, dlechner@baylibre.com, nuno.sa@analog.com,
andy@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: ssp_sensors: ssp_spi: use guard() to release mutexes
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:43:26 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F181DFF2-DB16-4771-A0C4-30FD089D7FC7@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abgUaXpJOveAtAWF@ashevche-desk.local>
On 16 March 2026 8:02:09 pm IST, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 06:25:07PM +0530, Sanjay Chitroda wrote:
>
>> Replace explicit mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock() with the guard() macro
>> for cleaner and safer mutex handling.
>
>TBH I don't see much benefit in this form. What I am thinking of is to refactor
>to have the guard and timeout_cnt++ in the top level, and
>
>static void ...(flag)
>{
> if (flag)
> return;
>
> guard(mutex)(&data->pending_lock);
> list_add_tail(&msg->list, &data->pending_list);
>}
>
>helper for three (*yes, 3) repetitive code snippets.
>
Thank you Andy for the review.
I understand your point about refactoring if pattern is repeated to simply things.
Also, while revisiting the changes, I noticed that unintended mistake where list_del() was replaced with list_add_tail() in couple of place during guard() conversion. I'll fix that in v4 along with suggestions and input from you and Jonathan.
I’ll send an updated version shortly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-26 3:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-15 12:55 [PATCH v3 0/3] iio: ssp_sensors: improve resource cleanup with cleanup.h Sanjay Chitroda
2026-03-15 12:55 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: ssp_sensors: ssp_spi: use guard() to release mutexes Sanjay Chitroda
2026-03-15 18:52 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-16 14:32 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-03-26 3:13 ` Sanjay Chitroda [this message]
2026-03-15 12:55 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] iio: ssp_sensors: simplify cleanup using __free Sanjay Chitroda
2026-03-15 18:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-15 12:55 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] iio: ssp_sensors: cleanup codestyle warning Sanjay Chitroda
2026-03-15 18:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-16 14:34 ` Andy Shevchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=F181DFF2-DB16-4771-A0C4-30FD089D7FC7@gmail.com \
--to=sanjayembeddedse@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox