On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:52 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 14/02/2024 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The current code requires thermal zone creators to pass pointers to
> > > writable ops structures to thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips()
> > > which needs to modify the target struct thermal_zone_device_ops object
> > > if the "critical" operation in it is NULL.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the callers of thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() are
> > > required to hold on to the struct thermal_zone_device_ops object passed
> > > to it until the given thermal zone is unregistered.
> > >
> > > Both of these requirements are quite inconvenient, so modify struct
> > > thermal_zone_device to contain struct thermal_zone_device_ops as field and
> > > make thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() copy the contents of the
> > > struct thermal_zone_device_ops passed to it via a pointer (which can be
> > > const now) to that field.
> > >
> > > Also adjust the code using thermal zone ops accordingly and modify
> > > thermal_of_zone_register() to use a local ops variable during
> > > thermal zone registration so ops do not need to be freed in
> > > thermal_of_zone_unregister() any more.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > static void thermal_of_zone_unregister(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
> > > {
> > > struct thermal_trip *trips = tz->trips;
> > > - struct thermal_zone_device_ops *ops = tz->ops;
> > >
> > > thermal_zone_device_disable(tz);
> > > thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
> > > kfree(trips);
> >
> > Not related to the current patch but with patch 1/6. Freeing the trip
> > points here will lead to a double free given it is already freed from
> > thermal_zone_device_unregister() after the changes introduces in patch
> > 1, right ?
>
> No, patch [1/6] doesn't free the caller-supplied ops, just copies them
> into the local instance. Attempting to free a static ops would not be
> a good idea, for example.
>
> BTW, thanks for all of the reviews, but this series is not applicable
> without the one at
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/6017196.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher/
As it turns out, this really is not a big deal, because the rebase is
trivial for everything except for the Intel patches, but for those two
I have the v1 versions that apply just fine without the other series
and have been reviewed.
So I can apply this series before the above one and rebase the latter
(I'd rather not send a new version of it though, so it can be reviewed
as is).
So never mind.
