Re: [RFC PATCH v1 12/38] coco: host: arm64: CCA host platform device driver

[Aneesh Kumar K . V]

Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:21:49 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V (Arm)" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>

...

>> +
>> +#include "rmm-da.h"
>> +
>> +/* Number of streams that we can support at the hostbridge level */
>> +#define CCA_HB_PLATFORM_STREAMS 4
>> +
>> +/* Total number of stream id supported at root port level */
>> +#define MAX_STREAM_ID	256
>> +
>> +DEFINE_FREE(vfree, void *, if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(_T)) vfree(_T))
>> +static struct pci_tsm *cca_tsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	int rc;
>> +	struct pci_host_bridge *hb;
>> +	struct cca_host_dsc_pf0 *dsc_pf0 __free(vfree) = NULL;
>
> Read the stuff in cleanup.h and work out why this needs
> changing to be inline below and not use this NULL pattern here
> (unless you like grumpy Linus ;)
>
> Note that with the err_out, even if you do that you'll still be
> breaking with the guidance doc (and actually causing undefined
> behavior :)  Get rid of those gotos if you want to use __free()
>
>

I’ve already fixed up similar cases by removing the goto based on cleanup.h
docs in other functions.I must have missed this one.

By the way, isn't using the `NULL` pattern acceptable when there are
no additional lock variables involved (ie, unwind order doesn't matter)?
Or should we always follow the pattern below regardless?

	struct cca_host_dsc_pf0 *dsc_pf0 __free(vfree) =
		vcalloc(sizeof(*dsc_pf0), GFP_KERNEL);

-aneesh