[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05c6d3bb-1fd4-4fb7-b1db-906a6689eb94@kylinos.cn>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 12:32:16 +0800
From: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"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>,
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;
>>
Reviewed-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists