[PATCH v1] cpufreq: use __free() for all cpufreq_cpu_get() references

[Zihuan Zhang]

在 2025/8/25 22:13, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 11:29 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan at kylinos.cn> wrote:
>> This patch replaces all remaining uses of cpufreq_cpu_get() with
>> the __free(cpufreq_cpu_put) annotation.
>>
>> Motivation:
>> - Ensures automatic cleanup of policy references when they go out of scope,
>>    reducing the risk of forgetting to call cpufreq_cpu_put() on early return
>>    or error paths.
>> - Brings the code in line with the latest kernel coding style and best
>>    practices for managing reference-counted objects.
>> - No functional changes are introduced; behavior remains the same,
>>    but reference counting is now safer and easier to maintain.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan at kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c                  |  9 +++----
>>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                            | 10 ++++----
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c              | 13 ++++------
>>   drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c         |  4 +---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c                |  4 +---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c                |  3 +--
>>   drivers/cpufreq/longhaul.c                    |  3 +--
>>   drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c            |  6 ++---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c             |  6 ++---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/s5pv210-cpufreq.c             |  3 +--
>>   drivers/cpufreq/tegra186-cpufreq.c            |  3 +--
>>   drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c            | 19 ++++-----------
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_llc.c           |  3 +--
>>   drivers/macintosh/windfarm_cpufreq_clamp.c    |  4 +---
>>   drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c                   | 24 ++++++-------------
>>   drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c                 |  7 ++----
>>   .../ti-soc-thermal/ti-thermal-common.c        |  5 +---
>>   kernel/power/energy_model.c                   |  7 ++----
>>   18 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
> This changes different pieces of code maintained by different people
> and the changes are not interdependent AFAICS, so better send it as a
> series of separate patches.
>
> Thanks!

Thanks for the suggestion.

I agree, splitting it into a series will make the review much clearer.