在 2025/9/3 21:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:

On 03/09/2025 15:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

  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!