Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36800-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:37:55 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@marvell.com>
Cc: Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@marvell.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@marvell.com>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@marvell.com>,
	Hariprasad Kelam <hkelam@marvell.com>,
	Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-af: Initialize bitmap arrays.
Message-ID: <20240124103755.GY254773@kernel.org>
References: <20240123051245.3801246-1-rkannoth@marvell.com>
 <20240123181716.GP254773@kernel.org>
 <MWHPR1801MB1918ADCA9FD3FAFAF9CC68B3D37B2@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR1801MB1918ADCA9FD3FAFAF9CC68B3D37B2@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 03:01:15AM +0000, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
> > From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-af: Initialize bitmap arrays.
> > 
> > Hi Ratheesh,
> > 
> > I assume that the reason that the cited commit moved away from devm_
> > allocations was to allow more natural management of the resources
> > independently of the life cycle of the driver instance. Or in other words, the
> > need to free the bitmaps in npc_mcam_rsrcs_deinit() probably indicates that
> > devm_ allocations of them aren't giving us anything.
> > 
> > So, perhaps kcalloc() is more appropriate than devm_kcalloc() ?
> This was a comment from @Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta during our internal review.  
> Could you please help with below questions/doubts ?
> 1. why devm_kfree() API  is available if it is done independently 

Hi Ratheesh,

I think the question is: if the devm_kfree() calls are removed,
then is the lifecycle of the objects in question managed correctly?

> 2. I could see instances of devm_kfree() usage in current kernel where it does explicit calls.

Sure. But in this case the use of devm_* doesn't seem to be adding
anything if the memory is _always_ freed by explicit calls to
devm_kfree().