[PATCH v3 03/12] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use scope-based cleanup helper

[Zihuan Zhang]

在 2025/9/1 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan at kylinos.cn> 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 <zhangzihuan at kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   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?