linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:50:38 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

On 12-02-16, 17:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful.
> > > 
> > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead.
> > > 
> > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine.
> > 
> > What about dropping the check completely ?
> 
> Fine by me.
> 
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary checks from show() and store()
> 
> The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to
> check if the struct freq_attr they want to use really provides the
> callbacks they need as expected (if that's not the case, it means
> a bug in the code anyway), so change them to avoid doing that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   21 +++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

-- 
viresh