linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] arch_topology: update CPU map to use the new API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250708092234.00006fd5@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:22:34 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
CC: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@...wei.com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<robh@...nel.org>, <coresight@...ts.linaro.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <dianders@...omium.org>,
	<james.clark@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <mike.leach@...aro.org>, <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>,
	<saravanak@...gle.com>, <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	<suzuki.poulose@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arch_topology: update CPU map to use the new API

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 08:29:43 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:

> On 07/07/2025 17:04, Alireza Sanaee wrote:
> > Cleans up the cpu-map generation using the created API.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > index 3ebe77566788..88970f13f684 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > @@ -518,23 +518,23 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> >   */
> >  static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> >  {
> > +	struct device_node *cpu_node __free(device_node) = NULL;  
> 
> 
> That's not a correct style anymore. What's more it is not really
> explained anywhere. Follow standard cleanup.h rules (constructor).

There isn't a good solution in this case as the constructor is via
a pointer passed as an argument. I'd just fall back to not using
__free here and instead doing a manual put of the node in the
paths where it is set.   That might just be the final successful
return path - I've not checked closely.

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof