Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <07c32bf1-6c1a-49d9-b97d-f0ae4a2b42ab@p183> <CAHk-=whO1+-4ALjFWSE0kzytz1kEbWPvy3xWvcUP1dJ4t-QqkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSetxQi+t3SBXu6OvBbmxV8AbX2CfdSA9JvF1chLJSU9Ppw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgRHiV5VSxtfXA4S6aLUmcQYEuB67u3BJPJPtuESs1JyA@mail.gmail.com> <CACMJSevZQgik7S-62fz9H7+Mib+W0CgYMV4GyWjYV7N_E6iHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACMJSevZQgik7S-62fz9H7+Mib+W0CgYMV4GyWjYV7N_E6iHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 22:03:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CACMJSevrJ5KSPAZVheXkNaYj8KQFD8ck55kU_E4vEj4vzR8wnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Buggy __free(kfree) usage pattern already in tree
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 21:27, Bartosz Golaszewski
<bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
>

[snip!]

>
> Understood. I'll go with a modified version of maybe-sane. I'll send a
> v2 tomorrow and make sure to Cc you.
>

[snip!]

One more question wrt the __free() coding style.

Is the following acceptable:

void foo(void)
{
    char *s __free(kfree) = NULL;

    do_stuff();
    s = kmalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL);
}

Or does it always have to be:

void foo(void)
{
    do_stuff();
    char *s __free(kfree) = kmalloc(42, GFP_KERNEL);
}

?

I guess it would be useful to get these rules into
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst at some point as we also have
an ongoing discussion about whether scoped guards should always
require curly braces[1] even for single statements.

Bartosz

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdVYDSPGP48OXxi-s4GFegfzUu900ASBnRmMo=18UzmCrQ@mail.gmail.com/