在 2025/9/1 23:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy) annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style. No functional change intended. Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c index f366d35c5840..4abc1ef2d2b0 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -1502,9 +1502,8 @@ static void __intel_pstate_update_max_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, static bool intel_pstate_update_max_freq(struct cpudata *cpudata) { - struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy); + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu); - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpudata->cpu); if (!policy) return false;The structure of the code is intentional here and there's no reason to change it.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying. So for this case the current structure is intentional - should I also avoid similar changes in other drivers?
