linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Fix compilation for !CONFIG

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, 23 Oct 2018 12:36:01 -0700
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Cc:     linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Fix compilation for !CONFIG_ACPI

On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 21:34 +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:17:28PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 20:54 +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > Fixes: 86d333a8cc7f ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add base_frequency
> > > attribute")
> > 
> > Thanks for the fix.
> > 
> > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > index 49c0abf2d48f..50c5699970c5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > @@ -390,11 +390,6 @@ static int
> > > intel_pstate_get_cppc_guranteed(int
> > > cpu)
> > >  static void intel_pstate_set_itmt_prio(int cpu)
> > >  {
> > >  }
> > > -
> > > -static int intel_pstate_get_cppc_guranteed(int cpu)
> > > -{
> > > -	return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > -}
> > 
> > What is ACPI is defined but SCHED_MC_PRIO is not defined?
> > Based on
> > "select ACPI_CPPC_LIB if X86_64 && ACPI && SCHED_MC_PRIO"
> > 
> > So the above is still required. correct?
> 
> Seems so, yes. Though that leads to either complicated #ifdefs or
> code
> duplications.
> 
> In any case, I'd suggest marking at least nested #else and #endif
> lines
> with comments denoting which #ifdef they relate to, e.g.
> 
> 	#else	/* CONFIG_ACPI */
> 	#endif	/* CONFIG_ACPI */
Will you submit a change?

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> Thanks,
> 	Dominik