Re: [PATCH 2/9] coresight-etm4x: change etmv4_drvdata spinlock type to raw_spinlock_t

[Yeo Reum Yun]

Hi James,

> There's a lot of churn in this function just to use the new scoped
> guard, but there was only one lock and unlock anyway. There are a few
> other cases of this in the whole set.
>
> The scoped guards make it easier to write correct code, but I'm not sure
> we gain anything here other than a bigger diff and more to review by
> changing already working code. Having said that I did review all the
> changes and I'm pretty sure they're all ok, so I'm on the fence about
> whether it's worth going back and undoing all of them.
>
> Surely updating to raw spinlocks is a search and replace to fix a
> specific problem, and the scoped guard stuff can be done on a case by
> case basis when anything is re-written in the future?
> 
> I don't know if we're considering a fixes tag, if PREEMPT_RT is 6.12?
> It's probably not necessary but if so we definitely want to minimise the
> change.

At first, thanks to review :) and as you said there's no functional change
except change of locktype.

But I thougt making seperate patchset to change locktype and
apply scoped_guard to two patchset makes people do duplicate review for
the same code and almost same posittion.

Since there's no functional change and reviewed,
I think it doesn't need to seperate..?

Thanks.