Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37683-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 21:15:47 +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: <20240124211547.GD217708@kernel.org>
References: <20240123051245.3801246-1-rkannoth@marvell.com>
 <20240123181716.GP254773@kernel.org>
 <MWHPR1801MB1918ADCA9FD3FAFAF9CC68B3D37B2@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240124103755.GY254773@kernel.org>
 <MWHPR1801MB191860047DEE03672DC642E3D37B2@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR1801MB191860047DEE03672DC642E3D37B2@MWHPR1801MB1918.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:43:26AM +0000, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
> > From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-af: Initialize bitmap arrays.
> > 
> > I think the question is: if the devm_kfree() calls are removed, then is the
> > lifecycle of the objects in question managed correctly?
> If lifecycle of the objects are managed correctly without devm_kfree(), why this API is 
> Provided and exported in kernel ?

When the lifecycle of an object is such that it is freed when
the device is detached and at no other time, then devm_* can be helpful
because there is no need for devm_free calls.

I do understand that devm_free() exists, and there are cases where
it makes sense. But I don't think devm_ is buying us anything here.

> 
> > 
> > > 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().
> I got it.  I would like to keep the diff minimal (rather than deleting lines diff). would this be okay ?

My feeling is that if you change your patch to:

1. Use kcalloc() instead of devm_kcalloc()
2. Not change kfree() calls to devm_kfree()

Then you will end up with a smaller diff than the current patch.
And it will address the problem described in the patch description.