This series converts manual mutex_lock/mutex_unlock pairs to
guard(mutex) in two ADXL accelerometer drivers. Each conversion
also simplifies error handling by removing goto labels and
returning directly on error paths.

Alphabetically Header alignment dropped in v2.

Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260309142352.57407-1-
rajveer.chaudhari.linux@gmail.com/

Rajveer Chaudhari (4):
  iio: accel: bmc150: convert to guard(mutex)
  iio: accel: mma8452: convert to guard(mutex)
  iio: accel: mma9551: convert to guard(mutex)
  iio: accel: sca3000: convert to guard(mutex)

 drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c | 17 ++---
 drivers/iio/accel/mma8452.c           | 21 +++---
 drivers/iio/accel/mma9551.c           | 10 ++-
 drivers/iio/accel/sca3000.c           | 97 ++++++++++++---------------
 4 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-)

-- 
2.53.0

On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 09:04:04PM +0530, Rajveer Chaudhari wrote:
> This series converts manual mutex_lock/mutex_unlock pairs to
> guard(mutex) in two ADXL accelerometer drivers. Each conversion
> also simplifies error handling by removing goto labels and
> returning directly on error paths.

> Alphabetically Header alignment dropped in v2.

Why? It's valid change when in the series.

And again to make sure you got it, send a new version at least 24h later than
the previous one, not 2h.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Why? It's valid change when in the series.

Hello Andy Thanks for the review, As Waqar Hameed previously
instructed that alphabetically aligning
headers is just a cosmetic change and to be kept in seperate patch. I
thought it would be a good idea to keep
only one logical change in the series.

> And again to make sure you got it, send a new version at least 24h later than
> the previous one, not 2h.

Yes, I will keep that in mind for future patches.

With Best Regards,
Rajveer Chaudhari

On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 23:03 +0530 Rajveer Chaudhari <rajveer.chaudhari.linux@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 10:00 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why? It's valid change when in the series.
>
> Hello Andy Thanks for the review, As Waqar Hameed previously
> instructed that alphabetically aligning
> headers is just a cosmetic change and to be kept in seperate patch. I
> thought it would be a good idea to keep
> only one logical change in the series.

A separate patch can still be in the same patch _series_. I would advise
you to not change anything until we have a consensus here (as already
mentioned in other thread).

[...]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 11:27 PM Waqar Hameed <waqar.hameed@axis.com> wrote:
>
> A separate patch can still be in the same patch _series_. I would advise
> you to not change anything until we have a consensus here (as already
> mentioned in other thread).

Yes, understood.

Thanks,
Rajveer