Hi Lukasz,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:01 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On 10/10/24 23:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Add and use a guard for thermal zone locking.
This allows quite a few error code paths to be simplified among
other things and brings in a noticeable code size reduction for
a good measure.
No intentional functional impact.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
---
This is a new iteration of
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/3241904.5fSG56mABF@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
that has been combined with
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/4613601.LvFx2qVVIh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
and rebased on top of
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/12549318.O9o76ZdvQC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
and
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/2215082.irdbgypaU6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
---
drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 61 +++++++---------------------
drivers/thermal/thermal_core.h | 4 +
drivers/thermal/thermal_debugfs.c | 25 +++++++----
drivers/thermal/thermal_helpers.c | 17 ++-----
drivers/thermal/thermal_hwmon.c | 5 --
drivers/thermal/thermal_netlink.c | 21 ++-------
drivers/thermal/thermal_sysfs.c | 81 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
drivers/thermal/thermal_trip.c | 8 ---
8 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)
[snip]
Surprise, how the code can look smaller using that
style with 'guard'.
Yes, it gets more concise.
Not only that, though. It is also less error-prone, because you won't
forget to unlock the lock in an error path and you won't use "lock"
instead of "unlock" by mistake etc.
Moreover, it kind of promotes dividing the code into smaller
self-contained pieces, which is a plus too IMV.