On 15.11.2024 19:03, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 14/11/2024 11:26 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 12.11.2024 22:19, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> microcode_update_cache() now has a single caller, but inlining it shows how >>> unnecessarily complicated the logic really is. >>> >>> Outside of error paths, there is always one microcode patch to free. Its >>> either result of parse_blob(), or it's the old cached value. >>> >>> In order to fix this, have a local patch pointer (mostly to avoid the >>> unnecessary verbosity of patch_with_flags.patch), and always free it at the >>> end. The only error path needing care is the IS_ERR(patch) path, which is >>> easy enough to handle. >>> >>> Also, widen the scope of result. We only need to call compare_patch() once, >>> and the answer is still good later when updating the cache. In order to >>> update the cache, simply SWAP() the patch and the cache pointers, allowing >>> the >>> singular xfree() at the end to cover both cases. >>> >>> This also removes all callers microcode_free_patch() which fixes the need to >>> cast away const to allow it to compile. >> I'm sure you're well aware that this in turn is just because of your >> opposition >> to xfree() and alike taking const void *. > > My opposition, and the C standards committee, and MISRA to name but a few.
The C standard's committee - yes, if we mean to stick to free()'s properties to the letter (I don't think they have any idea about unmap-like things). For Misra though, would you mind educating me where they would have a concern? Jan
