Re: [PATCH V2 Resend] cpuidle: free all state kobjects from cpuidle_free_state_kobj()

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 11/21/2013 04:48 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 18:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 08:54:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> Loop for states is currently present on callers side and so is replicated at
>>> several places. It would be better to move that inside cpuidle_free_state_kobj()
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> This patch does it.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
>>> index e918b6d..ade31a9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
>>> @@ -378,12 +378,17 @@ static struct kobj_type ktype_state_cpuidle = {
>>>        .release = cpuidle_state_sysfs_release,
>>>   };
>>>
>>> -static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device, int i)
>>> +static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device,
>>> +             int count)
>>>   {
>>> -     kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);
>>> -     wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);
>>> -     kfree(device->kobjs[i]);
>>> -     device->kobjs[i] = NULL;
>>> +     int i;
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>> +             kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);
>>> +             wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);
>>> +             kfree(device->kobjs[i]);
>>> +             device->kobjs[i] = NULL;
>>> +     }
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   /**
>>> @@ -419,8 +424,7 @@ static int cpuidle_add_state_sysfs(struct cpuidle_device *device)
>>>        return 0;
>>>
>>>   error_state:
>>> -     for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--)
>>> -             cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
>>> +     cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
>>
>> Well, doesn't the ordering actually matter?  Your patch changes the ordering
>> here.
>
> I don't think it matters. And it was done in reverse order earlier to
> save an extra
> variable..

Yes, that's correct. Without the reverse order we must declare a 
variable for the error case to do 'for (j = 0; j < i; j++)'

Thanks
   -- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog