[PATCH 10/18] KVM: arm64: Use guard() to cleanup usage of arm_pmus_lock
Oliver Upton
oliver.upton at linux.dev
Tue Dec 17 13:20:40 PST 2024
Get rid of some goto label patterns by using guard() to drop the
arm_pmus_lock when returning from a function.
Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 23 ++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
index 33cd694c754f..2c98cf24bef3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
@@ -821,26 +821,23 @@ void kvm_host_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
if (!pmuv3_implemented(kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit()))
return;
- mutex_lock(&arm_pmus_lock);
+ guard(mutex)(&arm_pmus_lock);
entry = kmalloc(sizeof(*entry), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!entry)
- goto out_unlock;
+ return;
entry->arm_pmu = pmu;
list_add_tail(&entry->entry, &arm_pmus);
-
-out_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&arm_pmus_lock);
}
static struct arm_pmu *kvm_pmu_probe_armpmu(void)
{
- struct arm_pmu *tmp, *pmu = NULL;
struct arm_pmu_entry *entry;
+ struct arm_pmu *pmu;
int cpu;
- mutex_lock(&arm_pmus_lock);
+ guard(mutex)(&arm_pmus_lock);
/*
* It is safe to use a stale cpu to iterate the list of PMUs so long as
@@ -861,17 +858,13 @@ static struct arm_pmu *kvm_pmu_probe_armpmu(void)
*/
cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
list_for_each_entry(entry, &arm_pmus, entry) {
- tmp = entry->arm_pmu;
+ pmu = entry->arm_pmu;
- if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &tmp->supported_cpus)) {
- pmu = tmp;
- break;
- }
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &pmu->supported_cpus))
+ return pmu;
}
- mutex_unlock(&arm_pmus_lock);
-
- return pmu;
+ return NULL;
}
static u64 __compute_pmceid(struct arm_pmu *pmu, bool pmceid1)
--
2.39.5
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list