On 11/21/2013 04:48 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 21 November 2013 18:39, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 08:54:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Loop for states is currently present on callers side and so is replicated at several places. It would be better to move that inside cpuidle_free_state_kobj() instead.
This patch does it.
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c index e918b6d..ade31a9 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c @@ -378,12 +378,17 @@ static struct kobj_type ktype_state_cpuidle = { .release = cpuidle_state_sysfs_release, };
-static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device, int i) +static inline void cpuidle_free_state_kobj(struct cpuidle_device *device,
int count)
kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);kfree(device->kobjs[i]);device->kobjs[i] = NULL;
int i;for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {kobject_put(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj);wait_for_completion(&device->kobjs[i]->kobj_unregister);kfree(device->kobjs[i]);device->kobjs[i] = NULL;}}
/**
@@ -419,8 +424,7 @@ static int cpuidle_add_state_sysfs(struct cpuidle_device *device) return 0;
error_state:
for (i = i - 1; i >= 0; i--)cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);Well, doesn't the ordering actually matter? Your patch changes the ordering here.
I don't think it matters. And it was done in reverse order earlier to save an extra variable..
Yes, that's correct. Without the reverse order we must declare a variable for the error case to do 'for (j = 0; j < i; j++)'
Thanks -- Daniel