Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:07:03 +0200
From:   Fernando Ramos <greenfoo@u92.eu>
To:     Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] dmr: cleanup: drm_modeset_lock_all_ctx() -->
 DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN()
Message-ID: <YUURh/CDzCGdBLzj@zacax395.localdomain>
References: <20210916211552.33490-1-greenfoo@u92.eu>
 <20210916211552.33490-2-greenfoo@u92.eu>
 <20210917152842.GA2515@art_vandelay>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210917152842.GA2515@art_vandelay>
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Could you please fix the subject, changing dmr to drm?
> 

Ups! Sure, I'll fix that. Thanks for noticing.


>
> I think you can just reuse 'ret' instead of creating a new variable. That
> ensures if the lock fails we return the error from the macros.
> 

I didn't reuse "ret" because otherwise I would have had to change the prototype
of the function (which currently returns a "bool" instead of an "int").

However I could, for example, check for any error and convert that into "false".
Would that be ok?