Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: switch to using guard() notation

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 11:18:14 +0200, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> said:
> On March 30, 2026 2:15:42 AM PDT, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:47:06 +0200, Dmitry Torokhov
>><dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>>> guard() notation allows early returns when encountering errors, making
>>> control flow more obvious. Use it.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
>>> index 028acd42741f..6e9ea9cc33bf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
>>> @@ -299,18 +299,19 @@ static irqreturn_t ti_ads7950_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
>>>  	struct ti_ads7950_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>>  	int ret;
>>>
>>> -	mutex_lock(&st->slock);
>>> -	ret = spi_sync(st->spi, &st->ring_msg);
>>> -	if (ret < 0)
>>> -		goto out;
>>> -
>>> -	iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts_unaligned(indio_dev, &st->rx_buf[2],
>>> -					      sizeof(*st->rx_buf) *
>>> -					      TI_ADS7950_MAX_CHAN,
>>> -					      iio_get_time_ns(indio_dev));
>>> -
>>> -out:
>>> -	mutex_unlock(&st->slock);
>>> +	do {
>>> +		guard(mutex)(&st->slock);
>>
>>Am I missing something? Why isn't it just a:
>>
>>	scoped_guard(mutex, &st->slock) {
>>		...
>>	}
>
> Maintainer's preference. It was a scoped guard in the first iteration.
>

Fair enough, though I don't really understand that. It looks less readable this
way IMO.

Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>