Re: __free usage
Przemek Kitszel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.osuosl.intel-wired-lan |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/5/26 00:56, Jeff Johnson via Intel-wired-lan wrote: > On 8/4/2026 3:54 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> On 11/16/2025 7:56 AM, Ally Heev wrote: >>> usage of cleanup attributes is discouraged in net [1], achieve cleanup >>> using goto. In this patch though, only uninitialized pointers with __free >>> attribute are cleaned as they can cause undefined behavior when they >>> go out of scope >>> >>> Suggested-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]> >>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >>> Signed-off-by: Ally Heev <[email protected]> >>> >>> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html#using-device-managed-and-cleanup-h-constructs >> >> <SMH> >> >> If using __free() *correctly* gives more readable code, why wouldn't we do it? >> >> The only problem with this function is that it doesn't follow the guidance >> from cleanup.h: >> >> * 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. > OMG, not sure why Thunderbird showed this as a recent unread e-mail. > Please ignore this noise! always happy to see some __free() advocates :) perhaps with our new meticulous friend Sashiko __free() would not be misused anymore, especially if we let them know the following quote: > So just make the rule be that __free() without an assignment is simply > a bug. > Linus and the resulting "less code" is always better (if only to fit more data into the AI context window)