在 2025/9/1 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM Zihuan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
---
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?
