linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 11/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: get rid of 'allowed

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:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:19:50 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 11/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: get rid of 'allowed_cpus'

Hi Viresh,

I have run the newest version (6a883ddf73cd).
It looks correct (tests are passing so far).
Feel free to add
Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>

I would like to go through the code before
it got merged, though.

If you are planing to post v4, I can test and review it
this week.

Regards,
Lukasz


On 25/04/17 05:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-04-17, 17:53, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> The policy pointer forwarded from cpufreq_update_policy()
>> is a local variable 'new_policy' so cannot be compared with pinned
>> policy pointer in the cooling device.
>> You should do the cpumask test like before:
>> 	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu,
>> 			      cpufreq_cdev->policy->related_cpus))
>
> Right. I have fixed it a bit differently now.
>
>> But there is something still in the patch set...
>> I will try to check it tomorrow.
>
> I reviewed all the patches very carefully again, trying to find out the culprit
> (I don't have the right hardware to test it like you have).
>
> Found out that max_level isn't used properly at few places, fixed and pushed my
> branch now. See if it works fine now.
>
> HEAD: 6a883ddf73cd
>