Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-76670-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4551531.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher> <2262393.iZASKD2KPV@kreacher>
 <ffa37950-d850-44e2-a33e-837466238d6d@linaro.org> <CAJZ5v0hqCbxChYmvADZJAFiuS1yPnRmj6ZZJfD032tnLB7ZZAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hqCbxChYmvADZJAFiuS1yPnRmj6ZZJfD032tnLB7ZZAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:05:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jLCh7NioDs2-ibCZ1UUAvCL=hH-5WgAk9SPJE_DoynEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] thermal: core: Store zone ops in struct thermal_zone_device
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, 
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, 
	Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@linux.intel.com>, 
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>, 
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>, Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>, 
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:52=E2=80=AFAM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.o=
rg> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:47=E2=80=AFAM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 14/02/2024 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > The current code requires thermal zone creators to pass pointers to
> > > writable ops structures to thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips()
> > > which needs to modify the target struct thermal_zone_device_ops objec=
t
> > > if the "critical" operation in it is NULL.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the callers of thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() ar=
e
> > > required to hold on to the struct thermal_zone_device_ops object pass=
ed
> > > to it until the given thermal zone is unregistered.
> > >
> > > Both of these requirements are quite inconvenient, so modify struct
> > > thermal_zone_device to contain struct thermal_zone_device_ops as fiel=
d and
> > > make thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() copy the contents of t=
he
> > > struct thermal_zone_device_ops passed to it via a pointer (which can =
be
> > > const now) to that field.
> > >
> > > Also adjust the code using thermal zone ops accordingly and modify
> > > thermal_of_zone_register() to use a local ops variable during
> > > thermal zone registration so ops do not need to be freed in
> > > thermal_of_zone_unregister() any more.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >   static void thermal_of_zone_unregister(struct thermal_zone_device *=
tz)
> > >   {
> > >       struct thermal_trip *trips =3D tz->trips;
> > > -     struct thermal_zone_device_ops *ops =3D tz->ops;
> > >
> > >       thermal_zone_device_disable(tz);
> > >       thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
> > >       kfree(trips);
> >
> > Not related to the current patch but with patch 1/6. Freeing the trip
> > points here will lead to a double free given it is already freed from
> > thermal_zone_device_unregister() after the changes introduces in patch
> > 1, right ?
>
> No, patch [1/6] doesn't free the caller-supplied ops, just copies them
> into the local instance.  Attempting to free a static ops would not be
> a good idea, for example.
>
> BTW, thanks for all of the reviews, but this series is not applicable
> without the one at
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/6017196.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher/

As it turns out, this really is not a big deal, because the rebase is
trivial for everything except for the Intel patches, but for those two
I have the v1 versions that apply just fine without the other series
and have been reviewed.

So I can apply this series before the above one and rebase the latter
(I'd rather not send a new version of it though, so it can be reviewed
as is).

So never mind.