On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 01:46:56PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> Dan Williams wrote:
> > Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > ---
> > > > PCI: Introduce cleanup helpers for device reference counts and locks
> > > >
> > > > The "goto error" pattern is notorious for introducing subtle resource
> > > > leaks. Use the new cleanup.h helpers for PCI device reference counts and
> > > > locks.
> > > >
> > > > Similar to the new put_device() and device_lock() cleanup helpers,
> > > > __free(put_device) and guard(device), define the same for PCI devices,
> > > > __free(pci_dev_put) and guard(pci_dev). These helpers eliminate the
> > > > need for "goto free;" and "goto unlock;" patterns. For example, A
> > > > 'struct pci_dev *' instance declared as:
> > > >
> > > > struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = NULL;
> > >
> > > I see several similar __free() uses with NULL initializations in gpio,
> > > but I think this idiom would be slightly improved if the __free()
> > > function were more closely associated with the actual pci_dev_get():
> > >
> > > struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = pci_get_device(...);
> > >
> > > Not always possible, I know, but easier to analyze when it is.
> >
> > I tend to agree, but it does lead to some long lines, for example:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > index 4fd1f207c84e..549ba4b8294e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > @@ -975,15 +975,14 @@ static void cxl_cper_event_call(enum cxl_event_type ev_type,
> > struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec)
> > {
> > struct cper_cxl_event_devid *device_id = &rec->hdr.device_id;
> > - struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = NULL;
> > enum cxl_event_log_type log_type;
> > struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds;
> > unsigned int devfn;
> > u32 hdr_flags;
> >
> > devfn = PCI_DEVFN(device_id->device_num, device_id->func_num);
> > - pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(device_id->segment_num,
> > - device_id->bus_num, devfn);
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(
> > + device_id->segment_num, device_id->bus_num, devfn);
> > if (!pdev)
> > return;
> >
> > ...so I think people are choosing the "... __free(x) = NULL;" style for
> > code density readability.
> >
>
> Also in this case we need devfn assigned first.
>
> Is the above patch compliant with current style guidelines?
>
> Or would it be better to do?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> index b14237f824cf..8a180c6abb67 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> @@ -975,15 +975,14 @@ static void cxl_cper_event_call(enum cxl_event_type ev_type,
> struct cxl_cper_event_rec *rec)
> {
> struct cper_cxl_event_devid *device_id = &rec->hdr.device_id;
> - struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = NULL;
> enum cxl_event_log_type log_type;
> struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds;
> - unsigned int devfn;
> + unsigned int devfn = PCI_DEVFN(device_id->device_num, device_id->func_num);
> + struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(
> + device_id->segment_num,
> + device_id->bus_num, devfn);
I don't really care about this specific instance; my comment was more
about the commit log for the "Define scope based management functions"
patch, thinking maybe the example could encourage get/put togetherness
when it's practical.
Bjorn
