在 2025/9/3 21:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 03/09/2025 15:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>   em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table)
>>>>   {
>>>>        struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd;
>>>> -     struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>> +     struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = NULL;
>>> This is not really correct coding style. Please read how to use
>>> cleanup.h expressed in that header. You should have here proper
>>> constructor or this should be moved. Or this should not be __free()...
>> I gather that this is what you mean (quoted verbatim from 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.
>>
>> and thanks for pointing this out!
>
> ... and the only exception would be if there is no single constructor,
> but multiple (in if() block). That's not the case here, I think.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


Sorry, I didn’t fully understand this earlier. In v3 I split the
definition and assignment mainly because the CPU value was obtained
later, so I thought I couldn’t initialize it in one go at the top of
the function. Honestly, it was also for “prettier” style.

After looking at the code Rafael just committed, I realized I can
simply define and assign the variable later in one line, without
needing to separate them. I’ll fix this in the next version.

Thanks for pointing it out!