On 13/05/2026 17:58, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Right now panthor is mixed bag of manual locks and guards. Let's make that more consitent and thus encourage new submissions to go for guards.
I'm fine with encouraging guards for future code - but I'm a little wary of a big change like this - it's hard to review it and check that everything works the same. And it's a little dubious that the mechanical refactoring produces more readable code in some cases.
That said I asked my friendly AI bot...
[...]
@@ -3142,48 +3126,44 @@ panthor_mmu_reclaim_priv_bos(struct panthor_device *ptdev, LIST_HEAD(remaining_vms); LIST_HEAD(vms);
- mutex_lock(&ptdev->reclaim.lock);
- list_splice_init(&ptdev->reclaim.vms, &vms);
- scoped_guard(mutex, &ptdev->reclaim.lock)
list_splice_init(&ptdev->reclaim.vms, &vms);while (freed < nr_to_scan) { struct panthor_vm *vm;
vm = list_first_entry_or_null(&vms, typeof(*vm),reclaim.lru_node);if (!vm)break;if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&vm->base.kref)) {list_del_init(&vm->reclaim.lru_node);continue;
scoped_guard(mutex, &ptdev->reclaim.lock) {vm = list_first_entry_or_null(&vms, typeof(*vm),reclaim.lru_node);if (vm && !kref_get_unless_zero(&vm->base.kref)) {list_del_init(&vm->reclaim.lru_node);vm = NULL;}
mutex_unlock(&ptdev->reclaim.lock);
if (!vm)break;
... and it said the above has changed behaviour.
In the !kref_get_unless_zero() case you now assign vm = NULL which then leads to the 'break' case above. Previously we 'continue'd.
Thanks, Steve