> 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:
>
> ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> return IIO_VAL_INT;
> }
>
> To:
>
> ret = bmc150_accel_set_power_state(data, false);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto unlock;
>
> ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
How do you think about to use the following code variant then?
if (!ret)
ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
> unlock:
> mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>
> 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
