On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 12:43:17PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:44:40 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > - struct ice_aqc_get_phy_caps_data *pcaps __free(kfree); > > > - void *mac_buf __free(kfree); > > > + struct ice_aqc_get_phy_caps_data *pcaps __free(kfree) = NULL; > > > + void *mac_buf __free(kfree) = NULL; > > > > This is just trading one kind of bug for another, and the __free() > > magic is at a cost of readability. > > > > I think we should ban the use of __free() in all of networking, > > until / unless it cleanly handles the NULL init case. > > Free handles the NULL init case, it doesn't handle the uninitialized > case. I had previously argued that checkpatch should complain about > every __free() pointer if the declaration doesn't have an assignment. > > The = NULL assignment is unnecessary if the pointer is assigned to > something else before the first return, so this might cause "unused > assignment" warnings? I don't know if there are any tools which > complain about that in that situation. I think probably we should just > make that an exception and do the checkpatch thing because it's such a > simple rule to implement. My understanding from Jonathan Cameron was that Linus wants a NULL always, unless there is an initialization with the declaration. julia
