Re: [PATCH 06/16] x86/amd_nb: Simplify root device search

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:08:20PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024, Zhuo, Qiuxu wrote:
> 
> > > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@xxxxxxx>
> > > [...]
> > > +struct pci_dev *amd_node_get_root(u16 node) {
> > > +	struct pci_dev *df_f0 __free(pci_dev_put) = NULL;
> > 
> > NULL pointer initialization is not necessary.
> 
> It is, because __free() is used...
> 
> > > +	struct pci_dev *root;
> > > +	u16 cntl_off;
> > > +	u8 bus;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ZEN))
> > > +		return NULL;
> 
> ...This would try to free() whatever garbage df_f0 holds...
> 
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * D18F0xXXX [Config Address Control] (DF::CfgAddressCntl)
> > > +	 * Bits [7:0] (SecBusNum) holds the bus number of the root device for
> > > +	 * this Data Fabric instance. The segment, device, and function will be
> > > 0.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	df_f0 = amd_node_get_func(node, 0);
> 
> ...However, the recommended practice when using __free() is this (as 
> documented in include/linux/cleanup.h):
> 
>  * Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
>  * the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem
>  * the recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one
>  * statement and not group variable definitions at the top of the
>  * function when __free() is used.
> 
> I know the outcome will look undesirable to some, me included, but 
> there's little that can be done to that because there's no other way for 
> the compiler to infer the order.
> 
> That being said, strictly speaking it isn't causing issue in this function 
> as is but it's still a bad pattern to initialize to = NULL because in 
> other instances it will cause problems. So better to steer away from the
> pattern entirely rather than depend on reviewers noticing the a cleaup 
> ordering problem gets introduced by some later change to the function.
>

I originally read that in the context of using a guard(). But really we
should do like this in any case, correct?

struct pci_dev *df_f0 __free(pci_dev_put) = amd_node_get_func(node, 0);

Thanks,
Yazen




[Index of Archives]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux