From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>
To: Abhinav Jain <jain.abhinav177@gmail.com>,
p.zabel@pengutronix.de, airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: skhan@linuxfoundation.org, julia.lawall@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpu: ipu-v3: Removal of of_node_put with __free for auto cleanup
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:29:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <035757b1-5dc5-4966-9eaf-a52b707bd48e@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240702150109.1002065-1-jain.abhinav177@gmail.com>
On 02/07/2024 17:01, Abhinav Jain wrote:
> Remove of_node_put for device node prg_node.
>
> Suggested-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Jain <jain.abhinav177@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/ipu-v3/ipu-prg.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/ipu-v3/ipu-prg.c b/drivers/gpu/ipu-v3/ipu-prg.c
> index 729605709955..d1f46bc761ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/ipu-v3/ipu-prg.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/ipu-v3/ipu-prg.c
> @@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ static LIST_HEAD(ipu_prg_list);
> struct ipu_prg *
> ipu_prg_lookup_by_phandle(struct device *dev, const char *name, int ipu_id)
> {
> - struct device_node *prg_node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node,
> - name, 0);
> + struct device_node *prg_node __free(device_node) =
> + of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, name, 0);
> struct ipu_prg *prg;
>
> mutex_lock(&ipu_prg_list_mutex);
> @@ -95,14 +95,11 @@ ipu_prg_lookup_by_phandle(struct device *dev, const char *name, int ipu_id)
> device_link_add(dev, prg->dev,
> DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER);
> prg->id = ipu_id;
> - of_node_put(prg_node);
> return prg;
> }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&ipu_prg_list_mutex);
>
> - of_node_put(prg_node);
> -
> return NULL;
> }
>
Hi Abhinav,
Apart form having sent two different patches with the same title (hence
the confusion), this cleanup is right from a functional point of view.
On the other hand, the description should address why you are doing this
cleanup (e.g. to remove the need for explicit of_node_put() when the
variable goes out of scope). The need for of_node_put() does no vanish,
it is only automated and no longer visible at first glance by means of
the cleanup attribute.
Best regards,
Javier Carrasco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-02 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-02 15:01 Abhinav Jain
2024-07-02 15:29 ` Javier Carrasco [this message]
2024-07-04 13:26 ` Abhinav Jain
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-07-02 14:48 Abhinav Jain
2024-07-02 15:08 ` Javier Carrasco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=035757b1-5dc5-4966-9eaf-a52b707bd48e@gmail.com \
--to=javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jain.abhinav177@gmail.com \
--cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®