[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250904041508.z5546b6a4usk5go2@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 09:45:08 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Rearrange variable declaration
involving __free()
On 03-09-25, 16:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Follow cleanup.h recommendations and define and assign a variable
> in one statement when __free() is used.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>
> Zhang, I said the code structure here was intentional, but that was before
> the cleanup.h recommendation was pointed out to me.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -1502,9 +1502,7 @@ static void __intel_pstate_update_max_fr
>
> static bool intel_pstate_update_max_freq(struct cpudata *cpudata)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy);
> -
> - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu);
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return false;
>
>
>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists