linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: do not allow transitions with regulators suspended

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: <2085822.gaTNcUz76n@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:00:21 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	"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>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: do not allow transitions with regulators suspended

On Thursday, November 14, 2013 06:55:05 AM viresh kumar wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 November 2013 08:46 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > arrgh, my bad.. Apologies for the bad one.. I missed it :( Does the following
> > look equivalent?
> 
> yes.
> 
> > With this, I now see:
> 
> > [   43.212714] cpufreq: cpufreq_add_policy_cpu: Failed to stop governor
> > ^^^ ??
> 
> Ahh, I missed this part. I thought it will fail at some other place where there
> is no error checking :), but that's not true.
> 
> Following should fix it for you and looks to be the right way as well.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index dc67fa0..30b09d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1530,6 +1530,14 @@ static void cpufreq_bp_resume(void)
>                 }
>         }
> 
> +       if (has_target()) {
> +               if ((ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
> +                       (ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS))) {


I'm not going to apply anything like this.  If I have already, that's been a mistake.

Do not mix assignments with logical operators in such outrageous ways, please.
That's completely unreadable and confusing.

What about:

	ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
	if (!ret) {
		ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
		if (ret) {


> +                       pr_err("%s: Failed to start governor\n", __func__);
> +                       goto fail;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
>         schedule_work(&policy->update);
> 
>  fail:

Thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/