linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] CPUFREQ: ondemand/conservative: deprecate sampling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090203210334.a99354ee.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:03:34 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc:	davej@...emonkey.org.uk, mark.langsdorf@....com,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] CPUFREQ: ondemand/conservative: deprecate
 sampling_rate{min,max}

On Tue,  3 Feb 2009 17:46:41 +0100 Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de> wrote:

>  static ssize_t show_sampling_rate_max(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  {
> +	printk(KERN_INFO "CPUFREQ: conservative sampling_rate_max "
> +	       "sysfs file is deprecated - used by: %s\n", current->comm);
>  	return sprintf (buf, "%u\n", MAX_SAMPLING_RATE);
>  }

I'd have thought that the user-irritation risk here is pretty high.

Would it make sense to throttle these or to make them once-per-boot
or something?

--
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/