linux-kernel - Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

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:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:31:43 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 20 September 2013 21:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -1460,6 +1460,9 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>>  {
>>>         unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
>>>
>>> +       if (cpufreq_disabled() || !cpufreq_driver)
>>> +               return -ENOENT;
>>> +
>>
>> But given that a cpufreq driver is just like any other driver, isn't the
>> proper thing to do to return -EPROBE_DEFER?
>
> Its not a probe and so that error type doesn't look correct to me..
> Also, its only taking care of things when this routine is called without
> a cpufreq driver and so it should be fine..

Well given the use case here I agree, keep with the -ENOENT.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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/