On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:27:47 -0700 Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > The gist of it is that we should instead be using inline declarations, > > which I also agree is a reasonable style for this. It more clearly shows > > the __free(kfree) and the allocation (kzalloc, kcalloc, etc) on the same > > (or virtually the same) line of code. > > > > I'm curious if Jakub would dislike this less? Accept? > > At present I find this construct unreadable. > I may get used to it, hard to say. > > Also I don't see the benefit of the auto-freeing construct, > I'd venture a guess that all the bugs it may prevent would > have been caught by smatch. But I'm an old curmudgeon stuck > in my ways. Feel free to experiment in Intel drivers, and we'll > see how it works out 🤷️ In my experiments with of_node_put, there seem to be many functions where removing the frees makes the function much more readable. But kmalloc/kfree may be used in different contexts, where the management of the memory is a smaller percentage of the overall code. So the tradeoffs may be different. julia
