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
