From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B5F65C; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711072113; cv=none; b=misYYZLdtM5Jo7wnqv6xnEnH+ip8bKXUX1RFanYZnJUsRuoOt4YAalJ+fMIphcjtqWBILQcS/Up0MDsN00t01EowlgUTeL87M+V4Vs+ELuu8YF/JepvcGDq/X7JjJ0M12laSKlKYTBL5MZBfz3ztEFm6X2xuG1lSbRHVRkGyzoI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711072113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xEs+nxPabscqfZYnqP1XSpV1Ny+o8wv2NPvfwWpfoJs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LKfqR6jzs/NkuNmuPqQjP0+YSiAzDF5kxUDFqWcpE2d8aEo7PGIUYzpgBVfJpxsFoZn6cvLBbgEIccHw7VXKUpKGsmIyLQWKJsvqpjv9lmR7/MiV/KCLkqrln4I2t8+iuaEomyVJmLRxIfb3s8hPfNicod40/648teEL+o1sX10= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SuYk7s2U; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SuYk7s2U" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEC36C43390; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:48:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711072110; bh=xEs+nxPabscqfZYnqP1XSpV1Ny+o8wv2NPvfwWpfoJs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SuYk7s2UjAWtsP6/F+h81BmUN58VCzNgEdB/VXdXyezkhoLn6Lqz+ITt0UJdCIcfc MiXw6aa2rxAKAjEikmm/XzpOegE/dWexDUa7SrwVZVVEyfwTMPigrjfeLC+u/6G91E jBraP1oU9V17rWifPfU6wXvsHCGENphUzV0qbInwg+d38pnyh8NBpVfuXFxZsbYLhF yJzOiZWaMrBi0k7B5AA+IfOfUa1BN4GJYeg7J0M0hUJoS4m5WR9ZgGj8++Y8oYmU+y tyBk7Yb4Q0wEoxrpcBbdi+zKXgP3dg6BFGK8x57EMhjLsLiEMhWO6yq8+Aas3hui6I m+Va6UdQhsoPw== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:48:28 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jesse Brandeburg Cc: Julia Lawall , Andy Shevchenko , Dan Carpenter , , , , "Maciej Fijalkowski" , Przemek Kitszel , Tony Nguyen , LKML , Alexander Lobakin , David Laight , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jiri Pirko , "Jonathan Cameron" , Kees Cook , Lukasz Czapnik , Paolo Abeni , "Pucha Himasekhar Reddy" , Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ice: Fix freeing uninitialized pointers Message-ID: <20240321184828.3e22c698@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:27:47 -0700 Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > The gist of it is that we should instead be using inline declarations,=20 > which I also agree is a reasonable style for this. It more clearly shows= =20 > the __free(kfree) and the allocation (kzalloc, kcalloc, etc) on the same= =20 > (or virtually the same) line of code. >=20 > I'm curious if Jakub would dislike this less? Accept? At present I find this construct unreadable. I may get used to it, hard to say. Also I don't see the benefit of the auto-freeing construct, I'd venture a guess that all the bugs it may prevent would have been caught by smatch. But I'm an old curmudgeon stuck in my ways. Feel free to experiment in Intel drivers, and we'll see how it works out =F0=9F=A4=B7=EF=B8=8F