On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:22 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2025 15:17, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> > Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
> > annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
> > counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzih...@kylinos.cn>
> > ---
> > kernel/power/energy_model.c | 7 ++-----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > index ea7995a25780..99401678e809 100644
> > --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static void
> > em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state
> > *table)
> > {
> > struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd;
> > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = NULL;
>
> This is not really correct coding style. Please read how to use
> cleanup.h expressed in that header. You should have here proper
> constructor or this should be moved. Or this should not be __free()...
I gather that this is what you mean (quoted verbatim from cleanup.h)
* Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
* the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem
* the recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one
* statement and not group variable definitions at the top of the
* function when __free() is used.
and thanks for pointing this out!
