On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 2:51 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzih...@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2025/9/2 19:47, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 12:33 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzih...@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 <zhangzih...@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 <zhangzih...@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!
Although I think that it would be cleaner to move the code executed in
each step of the for_each_possible_cpu() loop to a separate function.
