[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHUa44GU=Hb+L4St5Ryeh4AV-SAWBbzH-npEyek=TT1KPw2Awg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 11:44:38 +0100
From: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
To: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax
On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 11:42 PM Amirreza Zarrabi
<amirreza.zarrabi@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Initializing automatic __free variables to NULL without need (e.g.
> > branches with different allocations), followed by actual allocation is
> > in contrary to explicit coding rules guiding cleanup.h:
> >
> > "Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
> > the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem the
> > recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one statement
> > and not group variable definitions at the top of the function when
> > __free() is used."
> >
> > Code does not have a bug, but is less readable and uses discouraged
> > coding practice, so fix that by moving declaration to the place of
> > assignment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@....qualcomm.com>
I'm picking up this.
Thanks,
Jens
Powered by blists - more mailing lists