linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use scope-based cleanup helper

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: <40706b1f-e23c-417b-b3e1-2dc839828588@kylinos.cn>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 08:51:06 +0800
From: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk@...nel.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
 MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
 Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
 Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin
 <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
 Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...nel.org>,
 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
 Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
 Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>, zhenglifeng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>,
 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
 Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
 Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>, Fabio Estevam
 <festevam@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>,
 Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>,
 Prasanna Kumar T S M <ptsm@...ux.microsoft.com>,
 Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use scope-based cleanup
 helper

在 2025/9/2 19:47, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:33 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2025/9/1 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn> 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 <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 8 +++-----
>>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>>> index f366d35c5840..4abc1ef2d2b0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>>> @@ -1502,9 +1502,8 @@ static void __intel_pstate_update_max_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>>>
>>>>    static bool intel_pstate_update_max_freq(struct cpudata *cpudata)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
>>>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu);
>>>>
>>>> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu);
>>>>           if (!policy)
>>>>                   return false;
>>> The structure of the code is intentional here and there's no reason to
>>> change it.
>>
>> Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
>>
>> So for this case the current structure is intentional -
> Note that I'm talking about this particular change only.  The other
> change in the $subject patch is fine.
>
>> should I also avoid similar changes in other drivers?
> That depends on who maintains them, which is why I wanted you to split
> the patch into smaller changes in the first place.
>
> My personal view is that code formatting changes, which effectively is
> what this particular one is, are pointless unless they make the code
> much easier to follow.

UnderStood, Thanks!