Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:46:47 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        masahiroy@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com,
        nicolas@fjasle.eu, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        vkoul@kernel.org, trix@redhat.com, ojeda@kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        dennis@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, acme@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
        jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
        adrian.hunter@intel.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
        frederic@kernel.org, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com,
        dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, paul@paul-moore.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, ravi.bangoria@amd.com, error27@gmail.com,
        luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/57] perf: Simplify event_function*()
Message-ID: <1cbdae4a-d6ad-4dd8-aa75-9e226c4416fe@kadam.mountain>
References: <20230612090713.652690195@infradead.org>
 <20230612093539.371360635@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230612093539.371360635@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:07:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -224,17 +243,15 @@ static int event_function(void *info)
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> +	guard(perf_ctx_lock)(cpuctx, task_ctx);
>  
> -	perf_ctx_lock(cpuctx, task_ctx);
>  	/*
>  	 * Since we do the IPI call without holding ctx->lock things can have
>  	 * changed, double check we hit the task we set out to hit.
>  	 */
>  	if (ctx->task) {
> -		if (ctx->task != current) {
> -			ret = -ESRCH;
> -			goto unlock;
> -		}
> +		if (ctx->task != current)
> +			return -ESRCH;
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * We only use event_function_call() on established contexts,
> @@ -254,8 +271,6 @@ static int event_function(void *info)
>  	}
>  
>  	efs->func(event, cpuctx, ctx, efs->data);
> -unlock:
> -	perf_ctx_unlock(cpuctx, task_ctx);
>  
>  	return ret;


We can change this to a return 0; and get rid of the "ret" variable.

regards,
dan carpenter