linux-kernel - Re: [patch for 2.6.24? 1/1] cpufreq: Initialise default governor before use

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

Message-ID: <87tzldvlzl.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:17:02 +0100
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davej@...emonkey.org.uk, rjw@...k.pl,
	tglx@...utronix.de, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch for 2.6.24? 1/1] cpufreq: Initialise default governor before use

Hi,

Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:

> * akpm@...ux-foundation.org <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
>> +fs_initcall(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init);
>> +#else
>>  module_init(cpufreq_gov_dbs_init);
>> +#endif
>
> silly question: why not unconditional fs_initcall() ?

Would there be a way to avoid the fs_initcall at all?

Otherwise, this is just a psychological thing to show, hey, this still
sucks, find a better solution.  But perhaps the plain fs_initcall is
marker enough for that fact.

	Hannes
--
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/