linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] cpufreq: handle SW coordinated CPUs

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]

Message-ID: <CAKohpoms9AK+j+Au53cwbLn=ds0AsJn+ApUMgMxe2dVhC7McVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:21:03 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	swarren@...dotorg.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rickard Andersson <rickard.andersson@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] cpufreq: handle SW coordinated CPUs

On 30 January 2013 21:53, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:32:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

>> I believe this routine should be rather present in cpufreq core code,
>> as their might
>> be other users of it. Its really not related to dbs or governors.
>>
>> My ideas about the name of routine then:
>> - policy_is_shared()
>> - or something better you have :)
>
> So you are suggesting to rethink this function to be related to policy
> rather than dbs... this may as well become an inline in cpufreq.h, as:
>
> static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
>         return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
> }

Perfect.

> I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it
> because that's the comment in the declaration:
>
>         cpumask_var_t           cpus;   /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */
>         cpumask_var_t           related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */
>
> And those two are already confusing as a starting point.

I will fix these comments with a patch of mine.

> Anyway, this sounds fine to me.  If you think this is useful I can send
> a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do
> further cleanup work on this code.
>
> /me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind.

You can make it part of your patchsets v8.
--
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/