On 09-01-17, 15:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > @@ -894,8 +895,36 @@ static void _kfree_device_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > kfree_rcu(opp_table, rcu_head);
> > }
> >
> > -static void _free_opp_table(struct opp_table *opp_table)
> > +void _get_opp_table_kref(struct opp_table *opp_table)
> > {
> > + kref_get(&opp_table->kref);
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct opp_table *dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct opp_table *opp_table;
> > +
> > + /* Hold our table modification lock here */
> > + mutex_lock(&opp_table_lock);
> > +
> > + opp_table = _find_opp_table(dev);
> > + if (!IS_ERR(opp_table)) {
> > + _get_opp_table_kref(opp_table);
>
> It seems odd to have _get_opp_table_kref() take a pointer to
> increment a kref on.
This function is provided for better readability and passing opp_table to it is
the only option I had :)
> It would be better to have _find_opp_table()
> return the pointer with the reference already taken so that we
> don't have to update callers with reference grabbing calls.
> Typically if a function returns a reference counted pointer the
> reference counting has already been done.
Absolutely, but that happens with later patches in the series. I couldn't have
done it now, as something or the other would have broken.
--
viresh
