On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 03:07:26PM +0100, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c
> > index
> > 6d5c939dc8a515c252cd2b77d155b69fa264ee92..3590dacf3ee57879b3809d715e40bb290e40c4aa
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c
> > @@ -1573,12 +1573,13 @@ ice_flow_set_parser_prof(struct ice_hw *hw, u16
> > dest_vsi, u16 fdir_vsi,
> > struct ice_parser_profile *prof, enum ice_block blk)
> > {
> > u64 id = find_first_bit(prof->ptypes, ICE_FLOW_PTYPE_MAX);
> > - struct ice_flow_prof_params *params __free(kfree);
> > u8 fv_words = hw->blk[blk].es.fvw;
> > int status;
> > int i, idx;
> >
> > - params = kzalloc(sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + struct ice_flow_prof_params *params __free(kfree) =
> > + kzalloc(sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Please don't do it that way. It's not C++ with RAII and
> declare-where-you-use.
> Just leave the variable declarations where they are, but initialize them
> with `= NULL`.
>
> Variable declarations must be in one block and sorted from the longest
> to the shortest.
>
These days, with __free the trend is to say yes this is RAII and we
should declare it where you use it. I personally don't have a strong
opinion on this either way, but other maintainers do and will NAK the
`= NULL` approach.
The documentation says you should do it that way and avoid the `= NULL`
as well. The issue is with lock ordering. It's a FILO ordering, so if
we require a specific unlock order then declaring variables at the top
could mess things up.
The counter argument is that if you declare a variable after a goto
then that's undefined behavior as well. Clang will detect that bug so
it be detected before it hits actual users.
regards,
dan carpenter
