linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:54:23 +0800
From:	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	<rjw@...k.pl>, <robin.randhawa@....com>, <Steve.Bannister@....com>,
	<Liviu.Dudau@....com>, <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
	<patches@...aro.org>, <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Simplify __cpufreq_remove_dev()

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:50:44PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @Shawn: I believe your driver don't require that ugly code anymore (Though i
> know there is a situation for that to happen, if we have two cpus, you remove
> second one and then add it back. With this cpufreq_add_dev() would call init()
> first and then try to match if there are any managed_policies present. But the
> issue you pointed out about unregistering the driver would be solved by this
> patch.)

Yes, just played it and it works for me.  However, I would have to keep
that little ugly code in my patch to save the dependency on your patch.
Will send a follow-up to clean that up once your patch hits mainline.

Shawn

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/