Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-183499-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 14:04:29 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com>,
	Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: sun50i: fix memory leak in
 dt_has_supported_hw()
Message-ID: <20240520083429.e3f5vtyzc536x4wz@vireshk-i7>
References: <20240503-sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem-cleanup-v1-0-0a2352cac46b@gmail.com>
 <20240503-sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem-cleanup-v1-1-0a2352cac46b@gmail.com>
 <20240510174937.0a710104@donnerap.manchester.arm.com>
 <20240520073339.rf6laivnglmww3bf@vireshk-i7>
 <20240520092623.6ce850e1@donnerap.manchester.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240520092623.6ce850e1@donnerap.manchester.arm.com>

On 20-05-24, 09:26, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2024 13:03:39 +0530
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 10-05-24, 17:49, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > On Fri, 03 May 2024 19:52:32 +0200
> > > Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > index 0b882765cd66..ef83e4bf2639 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > > > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id cpu_opp_match_list[] = {
> > > >  static bool dt_has_supported_hw(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	bool has_opp_supported_hw = false;
> > > > -	struct device_node *np, *opp;
> > > > +	struct device_node *np;  
> > 
> > Why is the opp pointer removed ?
> 
> Because it's now declared *inside* the for_each_child_of_node_scoped loop
> below, courtesy of this new macro. The idea is that by doing so, any
> "break;" will exit the scope, triggering the cleanup routine. The loop
> running till "the end" will also make "opp" exit its scope, triggering the
> same routine.

Applied. Thanks.

-- 
viresh