linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <d6827976a56d429848ab8ababa2779a21c68d65f.1359434113.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:09:59 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	rjw@...k.pl, inderpal.singh@...aro.org
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	patches@...aro.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
	Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Set policy->related_cpus to atleast policy->cpus

With the addition of following patch, related_cpus is required to be set by
cpufreq platform drivers:

commit c1070fd743533efb54e98142252283583f379190
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Date:   Mon Jan 14 13:23:04 2013 +0000

    cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

Because this change is required by all platform drivers, why not do this in the
core itself. Hence, this patch is an attempt towards fixing all broken drivers.

>From now on, platforms don't really need to set related_cpus from their init()
routines, as the same work is done by core too.

If platform driver needs to set the related_cpus mask with some additional cpus,
other than cpus present in policy->cpus, they are free to do it as we aren't
overriding anything.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
Inderpal,

Can you please add your tested-by for this patch? And this will require you to
drop your patch for exynos-cpufreq.c :)

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index f5dc02b..db81382 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -554,8 +554,6 @@ static ssize_t show_cpus(const struct cpumask *mask, char *buf)
  */
 static ssize_t show_related_cpus(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
 {
-	if (cpumask_empty(policy->related_cpus))
-		return show_cpus(policy->cpus, buf);
 	return show_cpus(policy->related_cpus, buf);
 }
 
@@ -945,6 +943,9 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
 		goto err_unlock_policy;
 	}
 
+	/* related cpus should atleast have policy->cpus */
+	cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
+
 	/*
 	 * affected cpus must always be the one, which are online. We aren't
 	 * managing offline cpus here.
-- 
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e


--
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/