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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:09:18 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>, Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>, Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with > > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE > > notifier. > > The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-( > > It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing. > > What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications > unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is > just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one. Undoubtedly this looks far better :) But, isn't this series already applied some time back ? > > Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites. > > > > This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes. > > Why don't you redefine CPUFREQ_ADJUST as 1 instead? So that there is no request with 0? Yeah that could have been done. -- viresh -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists