Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1200143 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 18:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> - 2015-08-05 10:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 19:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> - 2015-08-05 19:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 20:50 +0200

#1200143 — [PATCH] thermal: power_allocator: do not use devm* interfaces

The code in question is called outside of standard driver
probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
infrastructure.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
index 13ccf00..e9ba29f 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c
@@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ static int allocate_power(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
 				      max_allocatable_power, current_temp,
 				      control_temp - current_temp);
 
-	devm_kfree(&tz->device, req_power);
+	kfree(req_power);
 unlock:
 	mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
 
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ static int power_allocator_bind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	params = devm_kzalloc(&tz->device, sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
+	params = kzalloc(sizeof(*params), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!params)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -468,14 +468,14 @@ static int power_allocator_bind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
 	return 0;
 
 free:
-	devm_kfree(&tz->device, params);
+	kfree(params);
 	return ret;
 }
 
 static void power_allocator_unbind(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
 {
 	dev_dbg(&tz->device, "Unbinding from thermal zone %d\n", tz->id);
-	devm_kfree(&tz->device, tz->governor_data);
+	kfree(tz->governor_data);
 	tz->governor_data = NULL;
 }
 
-- 
2.5.0.rc2.392.g76e840b


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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1200518

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> infrastructure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>

We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
to Eduardo.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1200990

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > infrastructure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> 
> We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> to Eduardo.

I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
versions use devm* for allocating memory

I guess this is one of examples of devm* usage in wrong context. Given
that you, as you have to, because this is not a device driver, manually
freeing that memory with devm_kfree(), the only thing that devm_kzalloc
and friends buy you here is extra memory allocations for devres
structures and few extra cycles for maintaining them.

Thanks.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201020

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:50:20PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > > infrastructure.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> > 
> > We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> > I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> > to Eduardo.
> 
> I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
> versions use devm* for allocating memory

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000/focus=45265
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/46064/focus=1722858

He didn't give reasons and I didn't ask for them.  He insisted on it so I just added
it across the board.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201056

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:29:03PM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:50:20PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29:11AM +0100, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:33:40PM +0100, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > The code in question is called outside of standard driver
> > > > probe()/remove() callbacks and thus will not benefit from use of devm*
> > > > infrastructure.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > We added the devm* calls because Eduardo asked for them in the review.
> > > I don't have a strong opinion regarding this, I'll leave the decision
> > > to Eduardo.
> > 
> > I tried to look for his reasons, if any, but even in earliest posted
> > versions use devm* for allocating memory
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/45000/focus=45265
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/46064/focus=1722858
> 
> He didn't give reasons and I didn't ask for them.  He insisted on it so I just added
> it across the board.

Yeah, that's my bad.

I believe I had in mind getting the thermal core in a better shape by
having proper driver/device matching. But still, looking at the code
now, I must agree with Dmitry. As of now, it does not make sense.


BR,

Eduardo

> 
> Cheers,
> Javi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web