linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix UP build

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

Message-ID: <20090708201738.GA22900@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:17:38 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix UP build

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:08:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
 > >
 > > From: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com> 
 > > 
 > > Fix this build error when CONFIG_SMP is not set:
 > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:941: 'managed_policy' undeclared
 > 
 > Grr. DaveJ?
 > 
 > That said, I'd much prefer the fix that does _not_ have this crap in it 
 > (not new to your diff - it's pre-existing crap):
 > 
 > 	>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 > 	>       struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
 > 	> +     struct sys_device *cpu_sys_dev;
 > 	>  #endif
 > 
 > and instead those variables should be declared inside the blocks where 
 > they are used, not at the top.
 > 
 > The rule should always be: make the scope of a variable as small as 
 > possible. Don't declare it at the top and try to "save" a declaration when 
 > it can be used inside multiple blocks as multiple different variables.
 > 
 > Also, that whole function could damn well be split into smaller pieces, 
 > which would make it much more readable than that horrible 250+ line piece 
 > of crap monster-function with #ifdef's inside the code.
 > 
 > Please, somebody?

This seems to be a minimal step in the direction of declaring it locally..
Not boot-tested, but should do the right thing.

I'll take a stab at chopping that function up further separately.

	Dave


commit 2381f2a2d3b329313b375bc0bf5df34802b9b4ba
Author: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Date:   Wed Jul 8 16:14:23 2009 -0400

    [CPUFREQ] Fix compile failure in cpufreq.c
    
    managed_policy is out of scope for the non-smp case.
    Declare it locally where used (twice)
    
    Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index c668ac8..b90eda8 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -776,9 +776,6 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct sys_device *sys_dev)
 	struct sys_device *cpu_sys_dev;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	unsigned int j;
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
-#endif
 
 	if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
 		return 0;
@@ -854,6 +851,8 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct sys_device *sys_dev)
 #endif
 
 	for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
+		struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
+
 		if (cpu == j)
 			continue;
 
@@ -932,6 +931,8 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct sys_device *sys_dev)
 
 	/* symlink affected CPUs */
 	for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
+		struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
+
 		if (j == cpu)
 			continue;
 		if (!cpu_online(j))

--
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/