Re: [PATCH 1/2] linux/interrupt.h: allow "guard" notation to disable and reenable IRQ with valid IRQ check

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, Jan 28 2026 at 13:23, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/27/26 10:14 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> disable_valid_irq is a pretty non-intuitive name if you look at it just
>> by reading a usage site. It's not really improving the readability of
>> the code, it's in fact obscuring it as the reader has to actually look
>> up what the hell this means and then stumble upon a completely
>> undocumented lock guard define.
>> 
>> I'm all for using guards, but using guards just for the sake of using
>> guards is not a really good approach.
> I wouldn't even be opposed to converting the ili2xxx driver (the piece 
> of code in patch 2/2 of this series) back to simple enable/disable_irq() 
> . I am not particularly on board even with the disable_irq lock guard, 
> or more specifically, lock guard used for non-lock things like this.

I agree that guard() is a slight misnomer for such usage, but this is
about scoped auto cleanups, so using it this way makes a lot of sense
when the scope mechanism is sensible.

Thanks,

        tglx