drivers/iio/adc/ade9000.c | 2 +- .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 5 +- drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 8 +- drivers/iio/health/max30102.c | 33 ++--- drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 86 +++--------- drivers/iio/light/opt4060.c | 52 +++----- drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 49 +++---- include/linux/iio/iio.h | 145 +++++++++++++++++++-- 8 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
Hi,
In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
differences.
In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
it rename the whole API like this:
iio_dev_mode_lock()
iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
iio_dev_mode_unlock()
Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
---
v3:
- Reword commit message of patch 1: infallible -> unconditional.
- Drop "*strongly*" in __iio_dev_mode_lock() kernel-doc and be a bit
more clear on the function's intention.
- Keep comment about inline functions and sparse markings, but drop
the __cond_acquires() part, as the new implementation makes it
unnecessary.
- Implement iio_device_release_*() as macros around
__iio_dev_mode_unlock().
- Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() ->
iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode() to avoid silently breaking
out-of-tree drivers.
- Drop the `_` argument prefix in new macros, as there are no name
conflicts.
- Drop "dummy" from IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE kernel-doc, as the
`claim` variable does store the error value.
- Drop IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_BUFFER_MODE() until a driver actually needs it.
- Rename IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_ERR() -> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED() to make the
name more clear.
- Rename IIO_DEV_GUARD_ANY_MODE() -> IIO_DEV_GUARD_CURRENT_MODE() to
make the name more clear.
- Add missing . in iio_device_release_direct() kernel-doc.
NOTE: Andy suggested __iio_dev_mode_*() be exported into the IIO_CORE
namespace. However, this cannot be done because these functions
need to be called inline, so Sparse can see the __acquires() and
__releases() tags.
Happy new year to everyone :)
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251211-lock-impr-v2-0-6fb47bdaaf24@gmail.com
- Add __iio_dev_mode_lock() (formerly iio_device_claim()) in the first
patch.
- Added comments to make sure __iio_dev_mode_lock() is not used by
drivers to protect internal state, or in general.
- Add patch which re-implements iio_device_claim_direct() using
__iio_dev_mode_lock().
- Match iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() semantics by reimplementing it
in the same way as iio_device_claim_direct().
- Guard classes now are prefixed with __priv__ to make sure drivers
don't use them directly.
- Add IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,DIRECT}_MODE() documented wrappers
- Avoid any function renames (for now).
- Rename dummy variable `claim` instead of `busy` on vcnl4000 patch.
- Avoid scoped guard in max30102.
- Keep using iio_trigger_validate_own_device() insted of
iio_trigger_using_own() in opt4060.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251203-lock-impr-v1-0-b4a1fd639423@gmail.com
---
Kurt Borja (7):
iio: core: Add and export __iio_dev_mode_lock()
iio: core: Refactor iio_device_claim_direct() implementation
iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics and implementation
iio: core: Add cleanup.h support for iio_device_claim_*()
iio: light: vcnl4000: Use IIO cleanup helpers
iio: health: max30102: Use IIO cleanup helpers
iio: light: opt4060: Use IIO cleanup helpers
drivers/iio/adc/ade9000.c | 2 +-
.../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 5 +-
drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 8 +-
drivers/iio/health/max30102.c | 33 ++---
drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 86 +++---------
drivers/iio/light/opt4060.c | 52 +++-----
drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 49 +++----
include/linux/iio/iio.h | 145 +++++++++++++++++++--
8 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: fb2f4eb29a258145b0336601f00509cab6e93e7c
change-id: 20251130-lock-impr-6f22748c15e8
--
~ Kurt
On Tue, 2026-01-06 at 03:06 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>
> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>
> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
> differences.
>
> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>
> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
> it rename the whole API like this:
>
> iio_dev_mode_lock()
> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>
> Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
> ---
> v3:
>
> - Reword commit message of patch 1: infallible -> unconditional.
>
> - Drop "*strongly*" in __iio_dev_mode_lock() kernel-doc and be a bit
> more clear on the function's intention.
>
> - Keep comment about inline functions and sparse markings, but drop
> the __cond_acquires() part, as the new implementation makes it
> unnecessary.
>
> - Implement iio_device_release_*() as macros around
> __iio_dev_mode_unlock().
>
> - Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() ->
> iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode() to avoid silently breaking
> out-of-tree drivers.
>
> - Drop the `_` argument prefix in new macros, as there are no name
> conflicts.
>
> - Drop "dummy" from IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE kernel-doc, as the
> `claim` variable does store the error value.
>
> - Drop IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_BUFFER_MODE() until a driver actually needs it.
>
> - Rename IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_ERR() -> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED() to make the
> name more clear.
>
> - Rename IIO_DEV_GUARD_ANY_MODE() -> IIO_DEV_GUARD_CURRENT_MODE() to
> make the name more clear.
>
> - Add missing . in iio_device_release_direct() kernel-doc.
>
> NOTE: Andy suggested __iio_dev_mode_*() be exported into the IIO_CORE
> namespace. However, this cannot be done because these functions
> need to be called inline, so Sparse can see the __acquires() and
> __releases() tags.
>
> Happy new year to everyone :)
>
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251211-lock-impr-v2-0-6fb47bdaaf24@gmail.com
>
> - Add __iio_dev_mode_lock() (formerly iio_device_claim()) in the first
> patch.
>
> - Added comments to make sure __iio_dev_mode_lock() is not used by
> drivers to protect internal state, or in general.
>
> - Add patch which re-implements iio_device_claim_direct() using
> __iio_dev_mode_lock().
>
> - Match iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() semantics by reimplementing it
> in the same way as iio_device_claim_direct().
>
> - Guard classes now are prefixed with __priv__ to make sure drivers
> don't use them directly.
>
> - Add IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,DIRECT}_MODE() documented wrappers
>
> - Avoid any function renames (for now).
>
> - Rename dummy variable `claim` instead of `busy` on vcnl4000 patch.
>
> - Avoid scoped guard in max30102.
>
> - Keep using iio_trigger_validate_own_device() insted of
> iio_trigger_using_own() in opt4060.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251203-lock-impr-v1-0-b4a1fd639423@gmail.com
>
> ---
> Kurt Borja (7):
> iio: core: Add and export __iio_dev_mode_lock()
> iio: core: Refactor iio_device_claim_direct() implementation
> iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics and implementation
> iio: core: Add cleanup.h support for iio_device_claim_*()
> iio: light: vcnl4000: Use IIO cleanup helpers
> iio: health: max30102: Use IIO cleanup helpers
> iio: light: opt4060: Use IIO cleanup helpers
>
> drivers/iio/adc/ade9000.c | 2 +-
> .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 5 +-
> drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 8 +-
> drivers/iio/health/max30102.c | 33 ++---
> drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 86 +++---------
> drivers/iio/light/opt4060.c | 52 +++-----
> drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 49 +++----
> include/linux/iio/iio.h | 145 +++++++++++++++++++--
> 8 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: fb2f4eb29a258145b0336601f00509cab6e93e7c
> change-id: 20251130-lock-impr-6f22748c15e8
Nothing to add from me...
Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>
On Sun Jan 18, 2026 at 5:00 AM -05, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-01-06 at 03:06 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
>> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>>
>> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>>
>> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
>> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
>> differences.
>>
>> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
>> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
>> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
>> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
>> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>>
>> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
>> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
>> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
>> it rename the whole API like this:
>>
>> iio_dev_mode_lock()
>> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>>
>> Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> v3:
>>
>> - Reword commit message of patch 1: infallible -> unconditional.
>>
>> - Drop "*strongly*" in __iio_dev_mode_lock() kernel-doc and be a bit
>> more clear on the function's intention.
>>
>> - Keep comment about inline functions and sparse markings, but drop
>> the __cond_acquires() part, as the new implementation makes it
>> unnecessary.
>>
>> - Implement iio_device_release_*() as macros around
>> __iio_dev_mode_unlock().
>>
>> - Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() ->
>> iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode() to avoid silently breaking
>> out-of-tree drivers.
>>
>> - Drop the `_` argument prefix in new macros, as there are no name
>> conflicts.
>>
>> - Drop "dummy" from IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE kernel-doc, as the
>> `claim` variable does store the error value.
>>
>> - Drop IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_BUFFER_MODE() until a driver actually needs it.
>>
>> - Rename IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_ERR() -> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED() to make the
>> name more clear.
>>
>> - Rename IIO_DEV_GUARD_ANY_MODE() -> IIO_DEV_GUARD_CURRENT_MODE() to
>> make the name more clear.
>>
>> - Add missing . in iio_device_release_direct() kernel-doc.
>>
>> NOTE: Andy suggested __iio_dev_mode_*() be exported into the IIO_CORE
>> namespace. However, this cannot be done because these functions
>> need to be called inline, so Sparse can see the __acquires() and
>> __releases() tags.
>>
>> Happy new year to everyone :)
>>
>> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251211-lock-impr-v2-0-6fb47bdaaf24@gmail.com
>>
>> - Add __iio_dev_mode_lock() (formerly iio_device_claim()) in the first
>> patch.
>>
>> - Added comments to make sure __iio_dev_mode_lock() is not used by
>> drivers to protect internal state, or in general.
>>
>> - Add patch which re-implements iio_device_claim_direct() using
>> __iio_dev_mode_lock().
>>
>> - Match iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() semantics by reimplementing it
>> in the same way as iio_device_claim_direct().
>>
>> - Guard classes now are prefixed with __priv__ to make sure drivers
>> don't use them directly.
>>
>> - Add IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,DIRECT}_MODE() documented wrappers
>>
>> - Avoid any function renames (for now).
>>
>> - Rename dummy variable `claim` instead of `busy` on vcnl4000 patch.
>>
>> - Avoid scoped guard in max30102.
>>
>> - Keep using iio_trigger_validate_own_device() insted of
>> iio_trigger_using_own() in opt4060.
>>
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251203-lock-impr-v1-0-b4a1fd639423@gmail.com
>>
>> ---
>> Kurt Borja (7):
>> iio: core: Add and export __iio_dev_mode_lock()
>> iio: core: Refactor iio_device_claim_direct() implementation
>> iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics and implementation
>> iio: core: Add cleanup.h support for iio_device_claim_*()
>> iio: light: vcnl4000: Use IIO cleanup helpers
>> iio: health: max30102: Use IIO cleanup helpers
>> iio: light: opt4060: Use IIO cleanup helpers
>>
>> drivers/iio/adc/ade9000.c | 2 +-
>> .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 5 +-
>> drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 8 +-
>> drivers/iio/health/max30102.c | 33 ++---
>> drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 86 +++---------
>> drivers/iio/light/opt4060.c | 52 +++-----
>> drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 49 +++----
>> include/linux/iio/iio.h | 145 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> 8 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
>> ---
>> base-commit: fb2f4eb29a258145b0336601f00509cab6e93e7c
>> change-id: 20251130-lock-impr-6f22748c15e8
>
> Nothing to add from me...
>
> Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>
Thank you for your feedback, Nuno!
--
Thanks,
~ Kurt
On 1/6/26 2:06 AM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>
> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>
> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
> differences.
>
> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>
> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
> it rename the whole API like this:
>
> iio_dev_mode_lock()
> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>
> Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
> ---
Like Jonathan, I just had a few minor suggestions, but overall:
Reviewed-by: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 5:08 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> On 1/6/26 2:06 AM, Kurt Borja wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
>> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>>
>> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>>
>> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
>> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
>> differences.
>>
>> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
>> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
>> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
>> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
>> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>>
>> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
>> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
>> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
>> it rename the whole API like this:
>>
>> iio_dev_mode_lock()
>> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>>
>> Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
>> ---
> Like Jonathan, I just had a few minor suggestions, but overall:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
Hi David,
I'll add your remarks in the next version. Thanks for all the feedback!
--
Thanks,
~ Kurt
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 03:06:55 -0500
Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>
> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>
> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
> differences.
>
> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>
> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
> it rename the whole API like this:
>
> iio_dev_mode_lock()
> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
I'm not a huge fan of flag days though this is entirely in direct mode
so I can just do it at the start of a cycle.
Anyhow, that's a job for another day where we can bikeshed the naming
yet again.
I do like unifying the unlock though.
Patch 5 never made the list for some reason.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260106-lock-impr-v3-0-1db909b192c0@gmail.com/#r
(I thought I'd accidentally deleted it!)
Thanks
Jonathan
>
> Let me know what you think and thanks for taking a look!
>
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
> ---
> v3:
>
> - Reword commit message of patch 1: infallible -> unconditional.
>
> - Drop "*strongly*" in __iio_dev_mode_lock() kernel-doc and be a bit
> more clear on the function's intention.
>
> - Keep comment about inline functions and sparse markings, but drop
> the __cond_acquires() part, as the new implementation makes it
> unnecessary.
>
> - Implement iio_device_release_*() as macros around
> __iio_dev_mode_unlock().
>
> - Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() ->
> iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode() to avoid silently breaking
> out-of-tree drivers.
>
> - Drop the `_` argument prefix in new macros, as there are no name
> conflicts.
>
> - Drop "dummy" from IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_DIRECT_MODE kernel-doc, as the
> `claim` variable does store the error value.
>
> - Drop IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_BUFFER_MODE() until a driver actually needs it.
>
> - Rename IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_ERR() -> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_FAILED() to make the
> name more clear.
>
> - Rename IIO_DEV_GUARD_ANY_MODE() -> IIO_DEV_GUARD_CURRENT_MODE() to
> make the name more clear.
>
> - Add missing . in iio_device_release_direct() kernel-doc.
>
> NOTE: Andy suggested __iio_dev_mode_*() be exported into the IIO_CORE
> namespace. However, this cannot be done because these functions
> need to be called inline, so Sparse can see the __acquires() and
> __releases() tags.
>
> Happy new year to everyone :)
>
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251211-lock-impr-v2-0-6fb47bdaaf24@gmail.com
>
> - Add __iio_dev_mode_lock() (formerly iio_device_claim()) in the first
> patch.
>
> - Added comments to make sure __iio_dev_mode_lock() is not used by
> drivers to protect internal state, or in general.
>
> - Add patch which re-implements iio_device_claim_direct() using
> __iio_dev_mode_lock().
>
> - Match iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() semantics by reimplementing it
> in the same way as iio_device_claim_direct().
>
> - Guard classes now are prefixed with __priv__ to make sure drivers
> don't use them directly.
>
> - Add IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,DIRECT}_MODE() documented wrappers
>
> - Avoid any function renames (for now).
>
> - Rename dummy variable `claim` instead of `busy` on vcnl4000 patch.
>
> - Avoid scoped guard in max30102.
>
> - Keep using iio_trigger_validate_own_device() insted of
> iio_trigger_using_own() in opt4060.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251203-lock-impr-v1-0-b4a1fd639423@gmail.com
>
> ---
> Kurt Borja (7):
> iio: core: Add and export __iio_dev_mode_lock()
> iio: core: Refactor iio_device_claim_direct() implementation
> iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics and implementation
> iio: core: Add cleanup.h support for iio_device_claim_*()
> iio: light: vcnl4000: Use IIO cleanup helpers
> iio: health: max30102: Use IIO cleanup helpers
> iio: light: opt4060: Use IIO cleanup helpers
>
> drivers/iio/adc/ade9000.c | 2 +-
> .../common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 5 +-
> drivers/iio/health/max30100.c | 8 +-
> drivers/iio/health/max30102.c | 33 ++---
> drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c | 86 +++---------
> drivers/iio/light/opt4060.c | 52 +++-----
> drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 49 +++----
> include/linux/iio/iio.h | 145 +++++++++++++++++++--
> 8 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
> ---
> base-commit: fb2f4eb29a258145b0336601f00509cab6e93e7c
> change-id: 20251130-lock-impr-6f22748c15e8
>
On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 3:33 PM -05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 03:06:55 -0500
> Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In a recent driver review discussion [1], Andy Shevchenko suggested we
>> add cleanup.h support for the lock API:
>>
>> iio_device_claim_{direct,buffer_mode}().
>>
>> Which would allow some nice code simplification in many places. Some
>> examples are given as patches, but the last two are the biggest
>> differences.
>>
>> In this version I dropped the RFC tag, as the general feeling is to go
>> through with this after some modifications. Main one is the addition of
>> IIO_DEV_ACQUIRE_{BUFFER,CLAIM}_MODE() wrappers to avoid drivers using
>> the guard classes directly. I also added comments on the forbidden ways
>> to use this API but I definitely still take suggestions on this.
>>
>> For now I dropped iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() rename, as this point
>> is still being discussed. My suggestion based on the RFC discussion is
>> to do it, but in a separate patch (using coccinelle) and while we're at
>> it rename the whole API like this:
>>
>> iio_dev_mode_lock()
>> iio_dev_mode_direct_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_buffer_trylock()
>> iio_dev_mode_unlock()
>
> I'm not a huge fan of flag days though this is entirely in direct mode
> so I can just do it at the start of a cycle.
>
> Anyhow, that's a job for another day where we can bikeshed the naming
> yet again.
>
> I do like unifying the unlock though.
I can send the patch, gather some feedback and then send a rebased v2 at
the start of the next cycle (or whenever seems best).
Should be pretty trivial, after I learn a bit about semantic patches
( famous last words? :) ).
If you feel up to it, I'm up to it.
>
> Patch 5 never made the list for some reason.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260106-lock-impr-v3-0-1db909b192c0@gmail.com/#r
>
> (I thought I'd accidentally deleted it!)
Yep, it seems it never reached. I'll make sure it does this time.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
>
--
Thanks,
~ Kurt
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.