[V2,Resend] cpuidle: free all state kobjects from cpuidle_free_state_kobj()

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(-)

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.

>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -430,10 +434,7 @@ error_state:
>   */
>  static void cpuidle_remove_state_sysfs(struct cpuidle_device *device)
>  {
> -	int i;
> -
> -	for (i = 0; i < device->state_count; i++)
> -		cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, i);
> +	cpuidle_free_state_kobj(device, device->state_count);
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS
>

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..

Daniel??

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