The code in question is called outside of standard driver
probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
infrastructure.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
---
drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
index 13ccf00..e9ba29f 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
@@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ static int allocate_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
max_allocatable_power, current_temp,
control_temp - current_temp);
- devm_kfree(&tz->device, req_power);
+ kfree(req_power);
unlock:
mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ static int power_allocator_bind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
return -EINVAL;
}
- params = devm_kzalloc(&tz->device, sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
+ params = kzalloc(sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!params)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -468,14 +468,14 @@ static int power_allocator_bind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
return 0;
free:
- devm_kfree(&tz->device, params);
+ kfree(params);
return ret;
}
static void power_allocator_unbind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
{
dev_dbg(&tz->device, "Unbinding from thermal zone %d\n", tz->id);
- devm_kfree(&tz->device, tz->governor_data);
+ kfree(tz->governor_data);
tz->governor_data = NULL;
}
--
2.5.0.rc2.392.g76e840b
--
Dmitry
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> infrastructure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
to Eduardo.
Cheers,
Javi
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
>
> We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> to Eduardo.
I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
versions use devm* for allocating memory
I guess this is one of examples of devm* usage in wrong context. Given
that you, as you have to, because this is not a device driver, manually
freeing that memory with devm_kfree(), the only thing that devm_kzalloc
and friends buy you here is extra memory allocations for devres
structures and few extra cycles for maintaining them.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:50:20PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > > infrastructure.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> >
> > We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> > I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> > to Eduardo.
>
> I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
> versions use devm* for allocating memory
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000/focus=45265
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/46064/focus=1722858
He didn't give reasons and I didn't ask for them. He insisted on it so I just added
it across the board.
Cheers,
Javi
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:29:03PM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:50:20PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > > > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > > > infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> > > I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> > > to Eduardo.
> >
> > I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
> > versions use devm* for allocating memory
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000/focus=45265
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/46064/focus=1722858
>
> He didn't give reasons and I didn't ask for them. He insisted on it so I just added
> it across the board.
Yeah, that's my bad.
I believe I had in mind getting the thermal core in a better shape by
having proper driver/device matching. But still, looking at the code
now, I must agree with Dmitry. As of now, it does not make sense.
BR,
Eduardo
>
> Cheers,
> Javi