lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 3/7] powercap/dtpm: Fixup kfree for virtual node
From
On 22/02/2022 16:55, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 14:18, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/02/2022 16:45, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Does ops->release() also resets the "dtpm" pointer to NULL? If not,
>>> it's good practice that it should, right?
>>>
>>> In that case, we would be calling "kfree(NULL);" the second time,
>>> which is perfectly fine.
>>
>> So you suggest to replace:
>>
>> if (ops->release)
>> ops->release(dtpm);
>> else
>> kfree(dtpm);
>>
>> By:
>>
>> if (ops->release) {
>> ops->release(dtpm);
>> dtpm = NULL;
>> }
>>
>
> I don't have a strong opinion how to code this.
>
> What I was trying to point out was that if ->ops->release() frees the
> memory it could/should also reset the pointer to NULL

No it can't because it is not a pointer, it is contained by the backend
specific structure.

eg.

struct dtpm_cpu {
struct dtpm dtpm;
};

the release frees a dtpm_cpu structure.



> And if that is already done, the kfree below is harmless and there
> would be nothing to "fix".
>
>> kfree(dtpm);
>>
>> ?
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe


--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-22 17:00    [W:0.864 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site