linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: remove redundant code

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:	Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:13:20 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
	pdsw-power-team@....com, arvind.chauhan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: remove redundant code

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 08:59:11 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 02:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> > On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> > > On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> > >> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative
> >> > >> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of
> >> > >> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which
> >> > >> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to
> >> > >> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >> >
> >> > For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next
> >> > branch.
> >>
> >> Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that.
> >
> > Or I would if it still applied.  Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any
> > more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it.
> >
> > Care to rebase?
> 
> Ahh.. I got confused by the following patch:
> 
> commit 83a73f712f2275033b2dc7f5c664988a1823ebc7
> Author: viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Date:   Tue Oct 23 01:28:05 2012 +0200
> 
>     cpufreq: Move common part from governors to separate file, v2
> 
>     Multiple cpufreq governers have defined similar get_cpu_idle_time_***()
>     routines. These routines must be moved to some common place, so that all
>     governors can use them.
> 
>     So moving them to cpufreq_governor.c, which seems to be a better place for
>     keeping these routines.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> 
> Actually, i should i have replied on this patch (and i forgot). I
> wanted you to skip
> this patch, as the latest patch already had this change.
> 
> But now i see commits from others on cpufreq_governor.c file.
> 
> Hmm... So you can keep your tree as it is and apply the attached
> patch. It is the
> same patch getting discussed in this thread. Just rebased over your latest next.

I have applied this patch only because of the fixes on top of it.  It broke
kernel compliation due to some missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLs in cpufreq_governor.c,
so I woulnd't have applied it otherwise.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/