linux-kernel - Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

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: <CAKohpomg=0YYHYu1Eh4MGW=_h3cppntBr1dQWMjCj_=AuRBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:35:29 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression on cpufreq in v3.12-rc1

On 20 September 2013 21:09, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1460,6 +1460,9 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu)
>>  {
>>         unsigned int ret_freq = 0;
>>
>> +       if (cpufreq_disabled() || !cpufreq_driver)
>> +               return -ENOENT;
>> +
>
> But given that a cpufreq driver is just like any other driver, isn't the
> proper thing to do to return -EPROBE_DEFER?

Its not a probe and so that error type doesn't look correct to me..
Also, its only taking care of things when this routine is called without
a cpufreq driver and so it should be fine..
--
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/