linux-kernel - [PATCH v1] cpufreq: core: Rearrange variable declarations involving _

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4691667.LvFx2qVVIh@rafael.j.wysocki>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:56:04 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Subject:
 [PATCH v1] cpufreq: core: Rearrange variable declarations involving __free()

From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Follow cleanup.h recommendations and always define and assign variables
in one statement when __free() is used.

No intentional functional impact.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   27 +++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1845,7 +1845,6 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_curre
  */
 unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = NULL;
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
@@ -1860,7 +1859,7 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get(unsigned
 
 	read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
 
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (policy)
 		return policy->cur;
 
@@ -1876,9 +1875,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_quick_get);
  */
 unsigned int cpufreq_quick_get_max(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (policy)
 		return policy->max;
 
@@ -1894,9 +1891,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_quick_get_max);
  */
 __weak unsigned int cpufreq_get_hw_max_freq(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (policy)
 		return policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
 
@@ -1920,9 +1915,7 @@ static unsigned int __cpufreq_get(struct
  */
 unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (!policy)
 		return 0;
 
@@ -2751,9 +2744,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_refresh(struc
  */
 void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (!policy)
 		return;
 
@@ -2770,9 +2761,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_update_policy);
  */
 void cpufreq_update_limits(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (!policy)
 		return;
 
@@ -3054,9 +3043,7 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void
 
 static bool cpufreq_policy_is_good_for_eas(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
-
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
 	if (!policy) {
 		pr_debug("cpufreq policy not set for CPU: %d\n", cpu);
 		return false;