Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
---
 drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
index 99390ec1481f..f76594185fa2 100644
--- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
+++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
@@ -144,19 +144,17 @@ static int update_pd_power_uw(struct dtpm *dtpm)
 static void pd_release(struct dtpm *dtpm)
 {
 	struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu = to_dtpm_cpu(dtpm);
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
 
 	if (freq_qos_request_active(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req))
 		freq_qos_remove_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req);
 
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
-	if (policy) {
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
+		cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
+
+	if (policy)
 		for_each_cpu(dtpm_cpu->cpu, policy->related_cpus)
 			per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, dtpm_cpu->cpu) = NULL;
 
-		cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
-	}
-
 	kfree(dtpm_cpu);
 }
 
@@ -192,7 +190,6 @@ static int cpuhp_dtpm_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
 static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
 {
 	struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu;
-	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
 	struct em_perf_state *table;
 	struct em_perf_domain *pd;
 	char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
@@ -202,21 +199,19 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
 	if (dtpm_cpu)
 		return 0;
 
-	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
+		cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
+
 	if (!policy)
 		return 0;
 
 	pd = em_cpu_get(cpu);
-	if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd)) {
-		ret = -EINVAL;
-		goto release_policy;
-	}
+	if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd))
+		return -EINVAL;
 
 	dtpm_cpu = kzalloc(sizeof(*dtpm_cpu), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!dtpm_cpu) {
-		ret = -ENOMEM;
-		goto release_policy;
-	}
+	if (!dtpm_cpu)
+		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	dtpm_init(&dtpm_cpu->dtpm, &dtpm_ops);
 	dtpm_cpu->cpu = cpu;
@@ -239,7 +234,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto out_dtpm_unregister;
 
-	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
 	return 0;
 
 out_dtpm_unregister:
@@ -251,8 +245,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
 		per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, cpu) = NULL;
 	kfree(dtpm_cpu);
 
-release_policy:
-	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
2.25.1

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>
> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> index 99390ec1481f..f76594185fa2 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> @@ -144,19 +144,17 @@ static int update_pd_power_uw(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>  static void pd_release(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>  {
>         struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu = to_dtpm_cpu(dtpm);
> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>
>         if (freq_qos_request_active(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req))
>                 freq_qos_remove_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req);
>
> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
> -       if (policy) {
> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
> +
> +       if (policy)
>                 for_each_cpu(dtpm_cpu->cpu, policy->related_cpus)
>                         per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, dtpm_cpu->cpu) = NULL;
>
> -               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> -       }
> -
>         kfree(dtpm_cpu);
>  }
>
> @@ -192,7 +190,6 @@ static int cpuhp_dtpm_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>  static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>  {
>         struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu;
> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>         struct em_perf_state *table;
>         struct em_perf_domain *pd;
>         char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
> @@ -202,21 +199,19 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>         if (dtpm_cpu)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +
>         if (!policy)
>                 return 0;
>
>         pd = em_cpu_get(cpu);
> -       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd)) {
> -               ret = -EINVAL;
> -               goto release_policy;
> -       }
> +       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd))
> +               return -EINVAL;
>
>         dtpm_cpu = kzalloc(sizeof(*dtpm_cpu), GFP_KERNEL);
> -       if (!dtpm_cpu) {
> -               ret = -ENOMEM;
> -               goto release_policy;
> -       }
> +       if (!dtpm_cpu)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
>
>         dtpm_init(&dtpm_cpu->dtpm, &dtpm_ops);
>         dtpm_cpu->cpu = cpu;
> @@ -239,7 +234,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>         if (ret < 0)
>                 goto out_dtpm_unregister;

So this change kind of goes against another recommendation given in cleanup.h:

 * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
 * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
 * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
 * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
 * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
 * convert none of them.

>
> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>         return 0;
>
>  out_dtpm_unregister:
> @@ -251,8 +245,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>                 per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, cpu) = NULL;
>         kfree(dtpm_cpu);
>
> -release_policy:
> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> --

在 2025/9/3 21:45, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
>> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
>> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>>   drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>> index 99390ec1481f..f76594185fa2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>> @@ -144,19 +144,17 @@ static int update_pd_power_uw(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>>   static void pd_release(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>>   {
>>          struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu = to_dtpm_cpu(dtpm);
>> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>
>>          if (freq_qos_request_active(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req))
>>                  freq_qos_remove_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req);
>>
>> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
>> -       if (policy) {
>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
>> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
>> +
>> +       if (policy)
>>                  for_each_cpu(dtpm_cpu->cpu, policy->related_cpus)
>>                          per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, dtpm_cpu->cpu) = NULL;
>>
>> -               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>> -       }
>> -
>>          kfree(dtpm_cpu);
>>   }
>>
>> @@ -192,7 +190,6 @@ static int cpuhp_dtpm_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>>   static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>   {
>>          struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu;
>> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>          struct em_perf_state *table;
>>          struct em_perf_domain *pd;
>>          char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
>> @@ -202,21 +199,19 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>          if (dtpm_cpu)
>>                  return 0;
>>
>> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
>> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>> +
>>          if (!policy)
>>                  return 0;
>>
>>          pd = em_cpu_get(cpu);
>> -       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd)) {
>> -               ret = -EINVAL;
>> -               goto release_policy;
>> -       }
>> +       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd))
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>
>>          dtpm_cpu = kzalloc(sizeof(*dtpm_cpu), GFP_KERNEL);
>> -       if (!dtpm_cpu) {
>> -               ret = -ENOMEM;
>> -               goto release_policy;
>> -       }
>> +       if (!dtpm_cpu)
>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>
>>          dtpm_init(&dtpm_cpu->dtpm, &dtpm_ops);
>>          dtpm_cpu->cpu = cpu;
>> @@ -239,7 +234,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>          if (ret < 0)
>>                  goto out_dtpm_unregister;
> So this change kind of goes against another recommendation given in cleanup.h:
>
>   * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
>   * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
>   * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
>   * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
>   * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
>   * convert none of them.


Should I replace all the memory allocation cleanups here with `__free`?
That would allow us to drop all the `goto`s, but since this function has
quite a few of them, I’m concerned it might introduce new issues. What’s
your recommendation?

Thanks!

>> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>>          return 0;
>>
>>   out_dtpm_unregister:
>> @@ -251,8 +245,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>                  per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, cpu) = NULL;
>>          kfree(dtpm_cpu);
>>
>> -release_policy:
>> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>>          return ret;
>>   }
>>
>> --

On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 12:38 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2025/9/3 21:45, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
> >> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
> >> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
> >> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
> >>
> >> No functional change intended.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
> >>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> >> index 99390ec1481f..f76594185fa2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
> >> @@ -144,19 +144,17 @@ static int update_pd_power_uw(struct dtpm *dtpm)
> >>   static void pd_release(struct dtpm *dtpm)
> >>   {
> >>          struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu = to_dtpm_cpu(dtpm);
> >> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> >>
> >>          if (freq_qos_request_active(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req))
> >>                  freq_qos_remove_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req);
> >>
> >> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
> >> -       if (policy) {
> >> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
> >> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
> >> +
> >> +       if (policy)
> >>                  for_each_cpu(dtpm_cpu->cpu, policy->related_cpus)
> >>                          per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, dtpm_cpu->cpu) = NULL;
> >>
> >> -               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> >> -       }
> >> -
> >>          kfree(dtpm_cpu);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> @@ -192,7 +190,6 @@ static int cpuhp_dtpm_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> >>   static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
> >>   {
> >>          struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu;
> >> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> >>          struct em_perf_state *table;
> >>          struct em_perf_domain *pd;
> >>          char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
> >> @@ -202,21 +199,19 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
> >>          if (dtpm_cpu)
> >>                  return 0;
> >>
> >> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> >> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
> >> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> >> +
> >>          if (!policy)
> >>                  return 0;
> >>
> >>          pd = em_cpu_get(cpu);
> >> -       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd)) {
> >> -               ret = -EINVAL;
> >> -               goto release_policy;
> >> -       }
> >> +       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd))
> >> +               return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >>          dtpm_cpu = kzalloc(sizeof(*dtpm_cpu), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> -       if (!dtpm_cpu) {
> >> -               ret = -ENOMEM;
> >> -               goto release_policy;
> >> -       }
> >> +       if (!dtpm_cpu)
> >> +               return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >>          dtpm_init(&dtpm_cpu->dtpm, &dtpm_ops);
> >>          dtpm_cpu->cpu = cpu;
> >> @@ -239,7 +234,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
> >>          if (ret < 0)
> >>                  goto out_dtpm_unregister;
> > So this change kind of goes against another recommendation given in cleanup.h:
> >
> >   * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
> >   * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
> >   * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
> >   * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
> >   * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
> >   * convert none of them.
>
>
> Should I replace all the memory allocation cleanups here with `__free`?
> That would allow us to drop all the `goto`s, but since this function has
> quite a few of them, I’m concerned it might introduce new issues. What’s
> your recommendation?

Frankly, don't use __free() in this code at all, at least for the time being.

There is a problem with dropping the reference to policy at the end of
__dtpm_cpu_setup() because that policy may be subsequently indirectly
used in set_pd_power_limit() which calls
freq_qos_update_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req, freq) and
dtpm_cpu->qos_req->qos is policy->constraints, so using it will cause
policy->constraints to be dereferenced in freq_qos_apply() which will
crash and burn if the policy goes away in the meantime.  So AFAICS
__dtpm_cpu_setup() shouldn't call cpufreq_cpu_put() at all and the
policy should be released in pd_release() without acquiring a new
reference to it.

You may as well try to fix this if you have free cycles.

在 2025/9/4 21:17, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 12:38 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2025/9/3 21:45, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:18 PM Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
>>>> Replace the manual cpufreq_cpu_put() with __free(put_cpufreq_policy)
>>>> annotation for policy references. This reduces the risk of reference
>>>> counting mistakes and aligns the code with the latest kernel style.
>>>>
>>>> No functional change intended.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 30 +++++++++++-------------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>>>> index 99390ec1481f..f76594185fa2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c
>>>> @@ -144,19 +144,17 @@ static int update_pd_power_uw(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>>>>    static void pd_release(struct dtpm *dtpm)
>>>>    {
>>>>           struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu = to_dtpm_cpu(dtpm);
>>>> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>>
>>>>           if (freq_qos_request_active(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req))
>>>>                   freq_qos_remove_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req);
>>>>
>>>> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
>>>> -       if (policy) {
>>>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
>>>> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(dtpm_cpu->cpu);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (policy)
>>>>                   for_each_cpu(dtpm_cpu->cpu, policy->related_cpus)
>>>>                           per_cpu(dtpm_per_cpu, dtpm_cpu->cpu) = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> -               cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>>>> -       }
>>>> -
>>>>           kfree(dtpm_cpu);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -192,7 +190,6 @@ static int cpuhp_dtpm_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
>>>>    static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>>>    {
>>>>           struct dtpm_cpu *dtpm_cpu;
>>>> -       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>>>           struct em_perf_state *table;
>>>>           struct em_perf_domain *pd;
>>>>           char name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
>>>> @@ -202,21 +199,19 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>>>           if (dtpm_cpu)
>>>>                   return 0;
>>>>
>>>> -       policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>>>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
>>>> +               cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>>>> +
>>>>           if (!policy)
>>>>                   return 0;
>>>>
>>>>           pd = em_cpu_get(cpu);
>>>> -       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd)) {
>>>> -               ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> -               goto release_policy;
>>>> -       }
>>>> +       if (!pd || em_is_artificial(pd))
>>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>>           dtpm_cpu = kzalloc(sizeof(*dtpm_cpu), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> -       if (!dtpm_cpu) {
>>>> -               ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> -               goto release_policy;
>>>> -       }
>>>> +       if (!dtpm_cpu)
>>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>>>>
>>>>           dtpm_init(&dtpm_cpu->dtpm, &dtpm_ops);
>>>>           dtpm_cpu->cpu = cpu;
>>>> @@ -239,7 +234,6 @@ static int __dtpm_cpu_setup(int cpu, struct dtpm *parent)
>>>>           if (ret < 0)
>>>>                   goto out_dtpm_unregister;
>>> So this change kind of goes against another recommendation given in cleanup.h:
>>>
>>>    * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
>>>    * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
>>>    * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
>>>    * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
>>>    * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
>>>    * convert none of them.
>>
>> Should I replace all the memory allocation cleanups here with `__free`?
>> That would allow us to drop all the `goto`s, but since this function has
>> quite a few of them, I’m concerned it might introduce new issues. What’s
>> your recommendation?
> Frankly, don't use __free() in this code at all, at least for the time being.
>
> There is a problem with dropping the reference to policy at the end of
> __dtpm_cpu_setup() because that policy may be subsequently indirectly
> used in set_pd_power_limit() which calls
> freq_qos_update_request(&dtpm_cpu->qos_req, freq) and
> dtpm_cpu->qos_req->qos is policy->constraints, so using it will cause
> policy->constraints to be dereferenced in freq_qos_apply() which will
> crash and burn if the policy goes away in the meantime.  So AFAICS
> __dtpm_cpu_setup() shouldn't call cpufreq_cpu_put() at all and the
> policy should be released in pd_release() without acquiring a new
> reference to it.
>

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation!

On 04/09/2025 12:37, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>>   * Lastly, given that the benefit of cleanup helpers is removal of
>>   * "goto", and that the "goto" statement can jump between scopes, the
>>   * expectation is that usage of "goto" and cleanup helpers is never
>>   * mixed in the same function. I.e. for a given routine, convert all
>>   * resources that need a "goto" cleanup to scope-based cleanup, or
>>   * convert none of them.
> 
> 
> Should I replace all the memory allocation cleanups here with `__free`?
> That would allow us to drop all the `goto`s, but since this function has
> quite a few of them, I’m concerned it might introduce new issues. What’s
> your recommendation?

If you keep asking this, I have doubts you really know how to use
cleanup.h. Don't blindly convert code to cleanup.h. It's very odd syntax
and it is not even welcomed everywhere.

Best regards,
Krzysztof