Re: [PATCH v2 11/15] ACPI: platform_profile: Set profile for all registered handlers

[Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>]

On 10/29/2024 11:50, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> 
>> On 10/29/2024 05:22, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>>
>>>> If multiple platform profile handlers have been registered then when
>>>> setting a profile verify that all profile handlers support the requested
>>>> profile and set it to each handler.
>>>>
>>>> If this fails for any given handler, revert all profile handlers back to
>>>> balanced and log an error into the kernel ring buffer.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Matthew Schwartz <matthew.schwartz@linux.dev>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>>>> b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>>>> index a83842f05022b..db2ebd0393cf7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c
>>>> @@ -105,37 +105,42 @@ static ssize_t platform_profile_store(struct device
>>>> *dev,
>>>>    			    struct device_attribute *attr,
>>>>    			    const char *buf, size_t count)
>>>>    {
>>>> +	struct platform_profile_handler *handler;
>>>> +	unsigned long choices;
>>>>    	int err, i;
>>>>    -	err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&profile_lock);
>>>> -	if (err)
>>>> -		return err;
>>>> -
>>>> -	if (!cur_profile) {
>>>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>>>> -		return -ENODEV;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>>>>    	/* Scan for a matching profile */
>>>>    	i = sysfs_match_string(profile_names, buf);
>>>>    	if (i < 0) {
>>>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>>>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>>>    	}
>>>>    -	/* Check that platform supports this profile choice */
>>>> -	if (!test_bit(i, cur_profile->choices)) {
>>>> -		mutex_unlock(&profile_lock);
>>>> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> -	}
>>>> +	scoped_cond_guard(mutex_intr, return -ERESTARTSYS, &profile_lock) {
>>>
>>> You made guard() conversions in the earlier patch but for some reason
>>> left scoped_cond_guard() ones mixed into other changes still. Is there
>>> a very good reason for that?
>>>
>>
>> Using scoped_cond_guard() requires changing the indentation which meant a bit
>> of back and forth with code coming and going.  If you think it makes more
>> sense to split up even considering the indentation changes I'll do another set
>> of patches for the scoped_cond_guard changes only.
> 
> There are ways to combat indentation changes while reviewing. However,
> it's a strange argument to bring up because now there are indentation
> changes in these patches exactly because you chose to make the
> scoped_cond_guard() change "while at it" rather than in a separate patch.
> 
> I believe the patches will become cleaner and easier to review if you do
> scoped_cond_guard() change separate from any other logic changes.

OK will do.