linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: clk_round

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: <529533AD.2050406@nvidia.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:50:05 -0800
From:	Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@...dia.com>
To:	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: clk_round_rate() can return a
 zero upon error

On 11/25/2013 09:03 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 07:31 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> index d4585ce2346c..0faf756f6197 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> unsigned int index)
>>       int ret;
>>
>>       freq_Hz = clk_round_rate(cpu_clk, freq_table[index].frequency * 1000);
>> -    if (freq_Hz < 0)
>> +    if (freq_Hz <= 0)
>>           freq_Hz = freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
>>
>>       freq_exact = freq_Hz;
> So, we will see another patch where you will do: s/<=/== ??

Probably so for this driver - along with converting the type of freq_Hz 
to be u64 or unsigned long.  Not sure yet about all of the other 
drivers, since many of them are unlikely to see rates above (2^31)-1 Hz.

> I am wondering if there is any other way we can get this solved, i.e. in a
> single patchset.

I'm trying to avoid sending up a large series that touches drivers all 
over the tree :-(

> Otherwise, for both SPEAr and cpu0 patches:
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

Thanks!  But I was instead hoping you might queue them up for merging 
for v3.14?  That should greatly reduce the risk of merge conflicts.

- Paul

--
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/