linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2

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]

Date:	Sat, 18 May 2013 07:45:45 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
	Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
	charles.garcia-tobin@....com, arvind.chauhan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2

On 18 May 2013 05:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-)
>
> And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't
> catch this problem.  Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq
> governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test
> "make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least.  What gives?

My assumption was wrong. Actually cpufreq_governor.c is never compiled
as module, but cpufreq_ondemand is...

And this routine isn't used from cpufreq_ondemand but cpufreq_governor..

But we were lucky that we didn't get a error here and EXPORT_SYMBOL
is still required :)
--
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/