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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <33531ab7-1cf2-448d-ab04-1f0aaf5d8889@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:26:21 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
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 08/07/2025 10:22, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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


That's even more confusing! There is a destructor here but no
constructor. This is clearly the pattern we people wanted to avoid with
cleanup.h.

> __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

Yes.

> return path - I've not checked closely.

Just noticed now:

Patch btw has some more unrelated white space changes... :/

Best regards,
Krzysztof