[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH4c4jLAfMTn6wN3wJSOQZ3mAoYC3uhswDu6c+c6v-wv8mSifQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 20:02:10 +0530
From: Pranav Tyagi <pranav.tyagi03@...il.com>
To: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
Cc: dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
alison.schofield@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ming.li@...omail.com, peterz@...radead.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cxl/memdev: automate cleanup with __free()
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:47 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@....com> wrote:
>
> On 23.06.25 14:08:41, Pranav Tyagi wrote:
> > Use the scope based resource management (defined in linux/cleanup.h) to
> > automate the lifetime control of struct cxl_mbox_transfer_fw. This
> > eliminates explicit kfree() calls and makes the code more robust and
> > maintainable in presence of early returns.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pranav Tyagi <pranav.tyagi03@...il.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cxl/core/memdev.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/memdev.c b/drivers/cxl/core/memdev.c
> > index f88a13adf7fa..38f4449f9740 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/memdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/memdev.c
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/idr.h>
> > #include <linux/pci.h>
> > +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > #include <cxlmem.h>
> > #include "trace.h"
> > #include "core.h"
> > @@ -802,11 +803,10 @@ static int cxl_mem_activate_fw(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds, int slot)
> > static int cxl_mem_abort_fw_xfer(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds)
> > {
> > struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox = &mds->cxlds.cxl_mbox;
> > - struct cxl_mbox_transfer_fw *transfer;
> > struct cxl_mbox_cmd mbox_cmd;
> > - int rc;
> > -
> > - transfer = kzalloc(struct_size(transfer, data, 0), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > + struct cxl_mbox_transfer_fw *transfer __free(kfree) =
> > + kzalloc(struct_size(transfer, data, 0), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> I don't see a reason for __free() here as there are no early exits.
>
> > if (!transfer)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -821,9 +821,7 @@ static int cxl_mem_abort_fw_xfer(struct cxl_memdev_state *mds)
> >
> > transfer->action = CXL_FW_TRANSFER_ACTION_ABORT;
> >
> > - rc = cxl_internal_send_cmd(cxl_mbox, &mbox_cmd);
> > - kfree(transfer);
> > - return rc;
> > + return cxl_internal_send_cmd(cxl_mbox, &mbox_cmd);
> > }
> >
> > static void cxl_fw_cleanup(struct fw_upload *fwl)
> > @@ -880,7 +878,7 @@ static enum fw_upload_err cxl_fw_write(struct fw_upload *fwl, const u8 *data,
> > struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds = &mds->cxlds;
> > struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox = &cxlds->cxl_mbox;
> > struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd = cxlds->cxlmd;
> > - struct cxl_mbox_transfer_fw *transfer;
> > + struct cxl_mbox_transfer_fw *transfer __free(kfree);
>
> Jonathan already catched this.
>
> > struct cxl_mbox_cmd mbox_cmd;
> > u32 cur_size, remaining;
> > size_t size_in;
> > @@ -949,7 +947,7 @@ static enum fw_upload_err cxl_fw_write(struct fw_upload *fwl, const u8 *data,
> > rc = cxl_internal_send_cmd(cxl_mbox, &mbox_cmd);
> > if (rc < 0) {
> > rc = FW_UPLOAD_ERR_RW_ERROR;
> > - goto out_free;
> > + return rc;
>
> If you want to remove the goto here, just free transfer right after
> calling cxl_internal_send_cmd(). It is no longer used then.
>
> I only want those cleanup helpers where they are actually useful and
> do not just add complexity.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Robert
>
> > }
> >
> > *written = cur_size;
> > @@ -963,14 +961,11 @@ static enum fw_upload_err cxl_fw_write(struct fw_upload *fwl, const u8 *data,
> > dev_err(&cxlmd->dev, "Error activating firmware: %d\n",
> > rc);
> > rc = FW_UPLOAD_ERR_HW_ERROR;
> > - goto out_free;
> > + return rc;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > rc = FW_UPLOAD_ERR_NONE;
> > -
> > -out_free:
> > - kfree(transfer);
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
Thank you for the feedback. I understand your concerns and completely
agree with your reasoning. Please pardon my misjudgment in sending this
patch. I am still a beginner with kernel development and learning to
better assess what makes a meaningful contribution.
Regards
Pranav Tyagi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists