linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3 v6] cpufreq: Add debugfs directory for cpufreq

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: <CAKohpom19C7JHSX6w31pSDrwcAR_PZn1HzP0Jui5iZL=bALDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:37:08 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v6] cpufreq: Add debugfs directory for cpufreq

I just realized I missed answering few questions:

On 24 July 2013 13:13, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 02:05 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 24 July 2013 06:55, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2013 07:11 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 18 July 2013 16:47, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com> wrote:

>>>>> +static void cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>>>> +                                    unsigned int new_cpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       struct dentry *old_entry, *new_entry;
>>>>> +       char new_dir_name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];
>>>>> +       unsigned int j, old_cpu = policy->cpu;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (!policy->cpu_debugfs[new_cpu])
>>>>> +               return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /*
>>>>> +        * Remove symbolic link of debugfs directory except for debugfs
>>>>> +        * directory of old_cpu.
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       for_each_present_cpu(j) {
>>>>> +               if (old_cpu == j)
>>>>> +                       continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +               debugfs_remove(policy->cpu_debugfs[j]);
>>>>
>>>> Why you need this? We aren't removing the earlier dentry at all here.
>>
>> haven't answered this.
>
> The debugfs entry of 'old_cpu' include child debugfs file(e.g., load_table)
> If cpu is last user of policy and core call __cpufre_remove_dev() to remove last cpu,
> core call cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(). I have to move the data of debugfs directory/file and
> child data for 'old_cpu' to debugfs directory for 'new_cpu'.
>
> If I remove earlier dentry of 'old_cpu', I can't get the child debugfs dir/file.
> So I didn't remove the earlier dentry of 'old_cpu'.

Okay.. The original question was: why do you need to remove & add
entries or links for cpus other than policy->cpu? Because we are renaming
the entry, wouldn't that work straight away?
--
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/