Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] Mixing goto-based cleanup labels with scope-based guard() declarations in the same function. --
commit e4ac0b901a628fa09984a6972d98830031479b53 Author: Ye Liu <[email protected]> kernel: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rculock This commit replaces manual rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() pairs combined with process/thread iterators across the kernel with the for_each_*_rculock() macros. These macros use scoped_guard(rcu) to handle the RCU lock duration. > diff --git a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c > index 40d373d65f9b9..f797ce1192233 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c [ ... ] > @@ -1057,11 +1057,10 @@ static int alloc_retstack_tasklist(unsigned long > **ret_stack_list) > } > } > > - rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_process_thread(g, t) { > + for_each_process_thread_rculock(g, t) { > if (start == end) { > ret = -EAGAIN; > - goto unlock; > + goto free; [Severity: Low] Does jumping to a manual cleanup label from within the scoped_guard(rcu) loop introduced by for_each_process_thread_rculock() violate the cleanup subsystem guidelines? According to include/linux/cleanup.h, goto and cleanup helpers should never be mixed in the same function to avoid confusing ownership semantics. Since alloc_retstack_tasklist() still uses a goto-based cleanup for ret_stack_list, should the allocation here be converted to use scope-based cleanup to avoid mixing these paradigms? > } > > if (t->ret_stack == NULL) { > @@ -1074,9 +1073,6 @@ static int alloc_retstack_tasklist(unsigned long > **ret_stack_list) > t->ret_stack = ret_stack_list[start++]; > } > } > - > -unlock: > - rcu_read_unlock(); > free: > for (i = start; i < end; i++) > kmem_cache_free(fgraph_stack_cachep, ret_stack_list[i]); -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=5
