On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 03:32:35PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/11/2025 08:07, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > 
> >> +	size_t keys_info_len = struct_size(keys_info, keys, inout.num_keys);
> >> +
> >> +	keys_info = kzalloc(keys_info_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!keys_info)
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> +	keys_info->num_keys = inout.num_keys;
> >> +
> >> +	ret = ops->pr_read_keys(bdev, keys_info);
> >> +	if (ret)
> >> +		return ret;
> >> +
> >> +	/* Copy out individual keys */
> >> +	u64 __user *keys_ptr = u64_to_user_ptr(inout.keys_ptr);
> >> +	u32 num_copy_keys = min(inout.num_keys, keys_info->num_keys);
> >> +	size_t keys_copy_len = num_copy_keys * sizeof(keys_info->keys[0]);
> > 
> > We just had the discussion about variable declarations on the ksummit 
> > lists; I really would prefer to have all declarations at the start of 
> > the scope (read: at the start of the function here).
> 
> Then also cleanup.h should not be used here.

Hi Krzysztof,
The documentation in cleanup.h says:

 * Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
 * the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem
 * 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.

This is a recommendation, not mandatory. It is also describing a
scenario that does not apply here.

There are many examples of existing users of __free() initialized to
NULL:

  $ git grep '__free(' | grep ' = NULL' | wc -l
  491

To me it seems like it is okay to use cleanup.h in this fashion. Did I
miss something?

Thanks,
Stefan