[v3] ACPI: NFIT: Use cleanup.h helpers instead of devm_*()

Commit Message

Wilczynski, Michal Oct. 17, 2023, 8:29 a.m. UTC

The new cleanup.h facilities that arrived in v6.5-rc1 can replace the
the usage of devm semantics in acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(). That
routine appears to only be using devm to avoid goto statements. The
new __free() annotation at variable declaration time can achieve the same
effect more efficiently.

There is no end user visible side effects of this patch, I was
motivated to send this cleanup to practice using the new helpers.

Suggested-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
---

Dan, would you like me to give you credit for the changelog changes
with Co-developed-by tag ?

v3:
 - changed changelog
v2:
 - removed first commit from the patchset, as the commit couldn't
   be marked as a fix
 - squashed those commits together, since the second one were
   mostly overwriting the previous one

 drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Comments

Dan Williams Oct. 18, 2023, 4:28 a.m. UTC | #1

Michal Wilczynski wrote:
> The new cleanup.h facilities that arrived in v6.5-rc1 can replace the
> the usage of devm semantics in acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(). That
> routine appears to only be using devm to avoid goto statements. The
> new __free() annotation at variable declaration time can achieve the same
> effect more efficiently.
> 
> There is no end user visible side effects of this patch, I was
> motivated to send this cleanup to practice using the new helpers.
> 
> Suggested-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
> ---
> 
> Dan, would you like me to give you credit for the changelog changes
> with Co-developed-by tag ?

Nope, this looks good to me, thanks for fixing it up.

Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <[e-mail]>

Rafael J. Wysocki Oct. 18, 2023, 10:39 a.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:28 AM Dan Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Michal Wilczynski wrote:
> > The new cleanup.h facilities that arrived in v6.5-rc1 can replace the
> > the usage of devm semantics in acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(). That
> > routine appears to only be using devm to avoid goto statements. The
> > new __free() annotation at variable declaration time can achieve the same
> > effect more efficiently.
> >
> > There is no end user visible side effects of this patch, I was
> > motivated to send this cleanup to practice using the new helpers.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
> > ---
> >
> > Dan, would you like me to give you credit for the changelog changes
> > with Co-developed-by tag ?
>
> Nope, this looks good to me, thanks for fixing it up.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <[e-mail]>

Are you going to apply it too, or should I take it?

Ira Weiny Dec. 21, 2023, 9:25 p.m. UTC | #3

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:28 AM Dan Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Michal Wilczynski wrote:
> > > The new cleanup.h facilities that arrived in v6.5-rc1 can replace the
> > > the usage of devm semantics in acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(). That
> > > routine appears to only be using devm to avoid goto statements. The
> > > new __free() annotation at variable declaration time can achieve the same
> > > effect more efficiently.
> > >
> > > There is no end user visible side effects of this patch, I was
> > > motivated to send this cleanup to practice using the new helpers.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <[e-mail]>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[e-mail]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Dan, would you like me to give you credit for the changelog changes
> > > with Co-developed-by tag ?
> >
> > Nope, this looks good to me, thanks for fixing it up.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <[e-mail]>
> 
> Are you going to apply it too, or should I take it?

I'm prepping the nvdimm tree for 6.8.  I will take it.

Ira

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
index 3826f49d481b..67a844a705c4 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
@@ -2257,26 +2257,23 @@  static int acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc,
 		struct nd_region_desc *ndr_desc,
 		struct acpi_nfit_system_address *spa)
 {
+	u16 nr = ndr_desc->num_mappings;
+	struct nfit_set_info2 *info2 __free(kfree) =
+		kcalloc(nr, sizeof(*info2), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct nfit_set_info *info __free(kfree) =
+		kcalloc(nr, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
 	struct device *dev = acpi_desc->dev;
 	struct nd_interleave_set *nd_set;
-	u16 nr = ndr_desc->num_mappings;
-	struct nfit_set_info2 *info2;
-	struct nfit_set_info *info;
 	int i;
 
+	if (!info || !info2)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
 	nd_set = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*nd_set), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!nd_set)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	import_guid(&nd_set->type_guid, spa->range_guid);
 
-	info = devm_kcalloc(dev, nr, sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!info)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	info2 = devm_kcalloc(dev, nr, sizeof(*info2), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!info2)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
 	for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
 		struct nd_mapping_desc *mapping = &ndr_desc->mapping[i];
 		struct nvdimm *nvdimm = mapping->nvdimm;
@@ -2337,8 +2334,6 @@  static int acpi_nfit_init_interleave_set(struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc,
 	}
 
 	ndr_desc->nd_set = nd_set;
-	devm_kfree(dev, info);
-	devm_kfree(dev, info2);
 
 	return 0;
 }