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: <CAJZ5v0g=riWtqaB=pGcxormmnaeFyRaeG1LZyEDBzpUGrH4kEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 13:04:18 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 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

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 2:51 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn> wrote:
>
>
> 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!

Although I think that it would be cleaner to move the code executed in
each step of the for_each_possible_cpu() loop to a separate function.