linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq

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:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 14:57:47 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted in
 ascending order

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2016 at 17:40, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>> On Monday, June 06, 2016 09:22:31 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>>> I agree with that, though that requires larger changes across multiple
>>> sites.
>>
>> What changes and where?
>
> s/larger/some :)
>
> So we can change all the callers of cpufreq_frequency_table_target(),

But why?

It just works as a static inline wrapper around cpufreq_find_index_l()
for the code in question after this patch, doesn't it?

So if the caller knows it will always ask for RELATION_L, why bother
with using the wrapper?

Also I'm wondering about the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry() used all
over.  Can't the things be arranged so all of the entries are valid?