As per documentation for the ida_destroy() function: "If the IDA is
already empty, there is no need to call this function."

The thermal framework is in the init sequence, so the ida was not yet
used and consequently it is empty in case of error.

There is no need to call ida_destroy(), let's remove the calls.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
index fddafcee5e6f..fad0c4a07d16 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
@@ -1624,8 +1624,6 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
 unregister_netlink:
 	thermal_netlink_exit();
 error:
-	ida_destroy(&thermal_tz_ida);
-	ida_destroy(&thermal_cdev_ida);
 	mutex_destroy(&thermal_list_lock);
 	mutex_destroy(&thermal_governor_lock);
 	return result;
-- 
2.34.1

On Mon, 2023-01-23 at 16:27 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> As per documentation for the ida_destroy() function: "If the IDA is
> already empty, there is no need to call this function."
> 
> The thermal framework is in the init sequence, so the ida was not yet
> used and consequently it is empty in case of error.
> 
> There is no need to call ida_destroy(), let's remove the calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>

thanks,
rui
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> index fddafcee5e6f..fad0c4a07d16 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> @@ -1624,8 +1624,6 @@ static int __init thermal_init(void)
>  unregister_netlink:
>  	thermal_netlink_exit();
>  error:
> -	ida_destroy(&thermal_tz_ida);
> -	ida_destroy(&thermal_cdev_ida);
>  	mutex_destroy(&thermal_list_lock);
>  	mutex_destroy(&thermal_governor_lock);
>  	return result;