linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set

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: <522FE369.3030106@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:28:41 +0800
From:	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Remove fossil comment of cpufreq_set_policy

On 2013年09月10日 23:31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 20:14,  <tianyu.lan@...el.com> wrote:
>> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
>>
>> The cpufreq_set_policy() has been removed by commit 632786c. So remove
>> related comment.
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> I have got another patch that takes care of this while fixing other issues..
> Yet to be posted though.. but I have queued it up for 3.13..
> 
> https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=commit;h=85267596078e3160b3b03de39d95c8e4b5bdf554
> 
Ok. I get it. Please ignore it. I just find another such comment related
with cpufreq_set_policy(). Please have a look.


>From 668e1b6fd94b5c0e56a651b4c60cbbc7a6868b46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:31:15 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Cpufreq/governor: Remove fossil comment

cpufreq_set_policy() has been changed to origin __cpufreq_set_policy()
and policy->lock has been converted to rewrite lock by commit 5a01f2.
So remove it.

Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c | 11 -----------
 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
index 0307809..4dbf1db 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_userspace.c
@@ -38,18 +38,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
unsigned int freq)
        if (!per_cpu(cpu_is_managed, policy->cpu))
                goto err;

-       /*
-        * We're safe from concurrent calls to ->target() here
-        * as we hold the userspace_mutex lock. If we were calling
-        * cpufreq_driver_target, a deadlock situation might occur:
-        * A: cpufreq_set (lock userspace_mutex) ->
-        *      cpufreq_driver_target(lock policy->lock)
-        * B: cpufreq_set_policy(lock policy->lock) ->
-        *      __cpufreq_governor ->
-        *         cpufreq_governor_userspace (lock userspace_mutex)
-        */
        ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
-
  err:
        mutex_unlock(&userspace_mutex);
        return ret;
--
1.8.4.rc0.1.g8f6a3e5.dirty

-- 
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
--
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/