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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:13:18 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Cc: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>, Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, Samuel Ortiz <samuel@...tiz.org>, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Introduce new cpufreq helper macros On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 10:53:16 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 6 May 2014 23:25, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr> wrote: > > My bad. I'm sorry for this. :( > > > > Rafael, > > A solution could be to make cpufreq_next_valid an inline function in cpufreq.h, > > but as Viresh mentioned this would be very inefficient because of multiple copies. > > That statement was true when we didn't had this problem.. > > > So, maybe it's better to revert the 2 patches that don't depend on CONFIG_CPU_FREQ: > > > > 4229e1c61a4a ("sh: clk: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for iteration") and > > 04ae58645afa ("irda: sh_sir: Use cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro for iteration"). > > This doesn't look right. It can happen to some other drivers as well in future. > So, there are two solutions I can think of: > 1. move cpufreq_next_valid and rename it to __cpufreq_next_valid(). Also make it > inline. Then create two versions of cpufreq_next_valid(), one inlined (only when > CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=n) and other one in cpufreq.c (non- inlined).. > > But probably that would be called ugly by some people :) > > 2. Make cpufreq_next_valid() inline and forget about extra space it takes :) > > @Rafel: Let me know which one you like :) 2. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists