Re: [PATCH V2 Resend] cpuidle: free all state kobjects from cpuidle_free_state_kobj()

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 11/21/2013 04:48 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 18:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 21, 2013 08:54:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Loop for states is currently present on callers side and so is replicated at
> > > several places. It would be better to move that inside cpuidle_free_state_kobj()
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > This patch does it.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > > index e918b6d..ade31a9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> > > @@ -378,12 +378,17 @@ static struct kobj_type ktype_state_cpuidle = {
> > >        .release = cpuidle_state_sysfs_release,
> > >   };
> > >
> > > -static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device, int i)
> > > +static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device,
> > > +             int count)
> > >   {
> > > -     kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);
> > > -     wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);
> > > -     kfree(device->kobjs[i]);
> > > -     device->kobjs[i] = NULL;
> > > +     int i;
> > > +
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > > +             kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);
> > > +             wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);
> > > +             kfree(device->kobjs[i]);
> > > +             device->kobjs[i] = NULL;
> > > +     }
> > >   }
> > >
> > >   /**
> > > @@ -419,8 +424,7 @@ static int cpuidle_add_state_sysfs(struct cpuidle_device *device)
> > >        return 0;
> > >
> > >   error_state:
> > > -     for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> > > -             cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
> > > +     cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
> >
> > Well, doesn't the ordering actually matter?  Your patch changes the ordering
> > here.
>
> I don't think it matters. And it was done in reverse order earlier to
> save an extra
> variable..

Yes, that's correct. Without the reverse order we must declare a 
variable for the error case to do 'for (j = 0; j < i; j++)'

Thanks
  -- Daniel


--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/