Re: [PATCH] iio/accel/bmc150: Improve unlocking of a mutex in two functions

[SF Markus Elfring]

> 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:
> 
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ret < 0)
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return ret;
> 
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return IIO_VAL_INT;
> }
> 
> To:
> 
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (ret < 0)
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ goto unlock;
> 
> ÂÂÂÂret = IIO_VAL_INT;

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

	if (!ret)
		ret = IIO_VAL_INT;


> unlock:
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> 
> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 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