Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2025 08:51:06 +0800 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 03/12] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use scope-based cleanup helper | | From | Zihuan Zhang <> |
| |
在 2025/9/2 19:47, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:33 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.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@kylinos.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@kylinos.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!
|  |