lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] iio/accel/bmc150: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions
From
Date
> IMHO, if you do this, you should rework the function so that there is a single unlock call
> at the end, not a separate one in in error label.

Thanks for your update suggestion.

Does it indicate that I may propose similar source code adjustments
in this software area?


> Could e.g. change this:
>
>         ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
>         mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 return ret;
>
>         return IIO_VAL_INT;
> }
>
> To:
>
>         ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 goto unlock;
>
>     ret = IIO_VAL_INT;

How do you think about to use the following code variant then?

if (!ret)
ret = IIO_VAL_INT;


> unlock:
>         mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>
>         return ret;
> }
>
> And also use the unlock label in the other cases, this is actually
> quite a normal pattern. I see little use in a patch like this if there
> are still 2 unlock paths after the patch.

How long should I wait for corresponding feedback before another small
source code adjustment will be appropriate?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-25 18:16    [W:0.041 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site