[PATCH v3 46/57] perf: Simplify pmu_dev_alloc()

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:44:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:07:59AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz at infradead.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/events/core.c |   65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -11285,49 +11285,46 @@ static void pmu_dev_release(struct devic
> >  
> >  static int pmu_dev_alloc(struct pmu *pmu)
> >  {
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> > +	struct device *dev __free(put_device) =
> > +		kzalloc(sizeof(struct device), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!dev)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > +	dev->groups = pmu->attr_groups;
> > +	device_initialize(dev);
> >  
> > +	dev_set_drvdata(dev, pmu);
> > +	dev->bus = &pmu_bus;
> > +	dev->release = pmu_dev_release;
> >  
> > +	ret = dev_set_name(dev, "%s", pmu->name);
> >  	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> > +	ret = device_add(dev);
> >  	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> > +	struct device *del __free(device_del) = dev;
> 
> Greg, I'm not much familiar with the whole device model, but it seems
> unfortunate to me that one has to call device_del() explicitly if we
> already have a put_device() queued.
> 
> Is there a saner way to write this?

Yes, there should be, let me look into it later tonight, need to get
some stable kernels out for review first...

thanks,

greg k-h