在 2025/9/1 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:

On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM Zihuan Zhang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
  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 -

should I also avoid similar changes in other drivers?