Re: [PATCH 1/3] serial: core: introduce guard(uart_port_lock_sysrq_irqsave)

[Jacques Nilo]

On Wed, 13 May 2026, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> > +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(uart_port_lock_sysrq_irqsave, struct uart_port,
>
> I suppose the "check" in the name is kind of important detail so maybe
> it shouldn't be dropped from the guard name.

Quick clarification before I respin: do you want this renamed in v2?

I dropped the "check_" segment because the existing
guard(uart_port_lock_irqsave) doesn't mirror its destructor's name
either (it expands to uart_port_unlock_irqrestore, not
uart_port_lock_irqsave_and_unlock_irqrestore), and the longer
uart_port_lock_check_sysrq_irqsave starts to feel verbose. But I see
the symmetry argument with uart_unlock_and_check_sysrq_irqrestore() and
I have no strong attachment to the shorter name.

If you'd like the rename, I'll do it for v2. If you're fine either
way, I'll keep the current name -- patches 2/3 and 3/3 already have
your Reviewed-by trailers on the call sites and I'd rather not
invalidate those over a naming choice.

The other points (commit-message reflow, Cc: stable on 1/3,
single-line destructor formatting) are unambiguous and will land in
v2 regardless.

Thanks for the review.

--
Jacques