| 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, 16 Jul 2014 13:54:49 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
"Srivatsa S . Bhat" <srivatsa@....edu>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend
On 16 July 2014 04:17, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +/* symlink related CPUs */
> +static int cpufreq_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, bool add)
> {
> - unsigned int j;
> + unsigned int j, first_cpu = cpumask_first(policy->related_cpus);
The CPU which came first should get the ownership by default, instead
of the first one in the mask.
Normally at boot, all CPUs come up first and then only cpufreq init starts.
But in case all other CPUs fail to come up, then policy->cpu *might* point
to a failed cpu.
And so, we should simply use policy->cpu here instead of finding the
first one in the mask.
Also, its not the duty of this routine to find which one is the policy cpu as
that is done by __cpufreq_add_dev(). And so in case we need to make
first cpu of a mask as policy->cpu, it should be done in __cpufreq_add_dev()
and not here. This one should just follow the orders :)
@Srivatsa: What happens to the sysfs directory if a CPU fails to come up?
Is it exactly similar to how it happens in hotplug? i.e. we do have a directory
there?
> int ret = 0;
>
> - for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
> + for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus) {
> struct device *cpu_dev;
>
> - if (j == policy->cpu)
> + if (j == first_cpu)
> continue;
>
> - pr_debug("Adding link for CPU: %u\n", j);
Keep this please, it might be useful while debugging.
> cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(j);
> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> - "cpufreq");
> + if (add)
> + ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> + "cpufreq");
> + else
> + sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
> +
> if (ret)
> break;
> }
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> - struct device *dev)
> +static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> struct freq_attr **drv_attr;
> + struct device *dev;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(policy->related_cpus));
> + if (!dev)
> + return -EINVAL;
Again, deciding which cpu is policy->cpu here is wrong. Just follow
orders of __cpufreq_add_dev().
> /* prepare interface data */
> ret = kobject_init_and_add(&policy->kobj, &ktype_cpufreq,
> &dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
> @@ -917,7 +923,7 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> goto err_out_kobj_put;
> }
>
> - ret = cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(policy);
> + ret = cpufreq_dev_symlink(policy, true);
> if (ret)
> goto err_out_kobj_put;
>
> @@ -961,60 +967,58 @@ static void cpufreq_init_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
@Srivatsa: I will try this but you also take care of this. These
ifdefs might go wrong,
i.e. we are surely using it in the current patch without HOTPLUG as well. See
cpufreq_add_dev()..
Also, how does suspend/resume work without CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU ?
What's the sequence of events?
> -static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> - unsigned int cpu, struct device *dev)
> +static int cpufreq_change_policy_cpus(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int cpu, bool add)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> - unsigned long flags;
> + unsigned int cpus, pcpu;
>
> - if (has_target()) {
> + down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> +
> + cpus = !cpumask_empty(policy->cpus);
We aren't using cpus at multiple places and so probably it would
be better to using cpumask_empty() directly.
> + if (has_target() && cpus) {
I may get the answer later in reviews, but when will cpus be 0 here?
Probably for non-boot cluster during suspend/resume, or forceful
hotplugging off all CPUs of a cluster. Right?
> ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> if (ret) {
> pr_err("%s: Failed to stop governor\n", __func__);
> - return ret;
> + goto unlock;
> }
> }
>
> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -
> - cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> - per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) = policy;
> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + if (add)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> + else
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
>
> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> + pcpu = cpumask_first(policy->cpus);
> + if (pcpu < nr_cpu_ids && policy->cpu != pcpu) {
No, we don't have to consider changing policy->cpu for every change
in policy->cpus. We need to do that only when policy->cpu goes down.
Also pcpu can't be < nr_cpu_ids, right?
> + policy->last_cpu = policy->cpu;
> + policy->cpu = pcpu;
> + blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> + CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU, policy);
> + }
>
> - if (has_target()) {
> + cpus = !cpumask_empty(policy->cpus);
> + if (has_target() && cpus) {
> 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__);
> - return ret;
> + goto unlock;
> }
> }
>
> - return sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq");
> -}
> -#endif
> -
> -static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_restore(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> - read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -
> - policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback, cpu);
> -
> - read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + if (!cpus && cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu && cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
As I commented on V1, please make it else part of above if..
> + cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu(policy);
> + }
>
> - policy->governor = NULL;
> +unlock:
> + up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> - return policy;
> + return ret;
> }
> +#endif
>
> static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(void)
> {
> @@ -1053,10 +1057,8 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY, policy);
>
> - down_read(&policy->rwsem);
> kobj = &policy->kobj;
> cmp = &policy->kobj_unregister;
> - up_read(&policy->rwsem);
Why? And also, these are unrelated changes and must be added as separate
commits.
> kobject_put(kobj);
>
> /*
> @@ -1076,32 +1078,12 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> kfree(policy);
> }
>
> -static void update_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> - if (WARN_ON(cpu == policy->cpu))
> - return;
> -
> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - policy->last_cpu = policy->cpu;
> - policy->cpu = cpu;
> -
> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> - CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU, policy);
> -}
> -
> static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> {
> unsigned int j, cpu = dev->id;
> int ret = -ENOMEM;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> unsigned long flags;
> - bool recover_policy = cpufreq_suspended;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> - struct cpufreq_policy *tpolicy;
> -#endif
>
> if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> return 0;
> @@ -1110,9 +1092,10 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* check whether a different CPU already registered this
> - * CPU because it is in the same boat. */
> + * CPU because it is one of the related CPUs. */
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> - if (unlikely(policy)) {
> + if (policy) {
> + cpufreq_change_policy_cpus(policy, cpu, true);
This is just a waste of time at boot as ... (see below)
> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1121,45 +1104,14 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem))
> return 0;
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> - /* Check if this cpu was hot-unplugged earlier and has siblings */
> - read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> - list_for_each_entry(tpolicy, &cpufreq_policy_list, policy_list) {
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tpolicy->related_cpus)) {
> - read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> - ret = cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(tpolicy, cpu, dev);
> - up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem);
> - return ret;
> - }
> - }
> - read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -#endif
> -
> - /*
> - * Restore the saved policy when doing light-weight init and fall back
> - * to the full init if that fails.
> - */
> - policy = recover_policy ? cpufreq_policy_restore(cpu) : NULL;
> - if (!policy) {
> - recover_policy = false;
> - policy = cpufreq_policy_alloc();
> - if (!policy)
> - goto nomem_out;
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * In the resume path, since we restore a saved policy, the assignment
> - * to policy->cpu is like an update of the existing policy, rather than
> - * the creation of a brand new one. So we need to perform this update
> - * by invoking update_policy_cpu().
> - */
> - if (recover_policy && cpu != policy->cpu)
> - update_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
> - else
> - policy->cpu = cpu;
> + /* If we get this far, this is the first time we are adding the
> + * policy */
> + policy = cpufreq_policy_alloc();
> + if (!policy)
> + goto nomem_out;
> + policy->cpu = cpu;
>
> cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpumask_of(cpu));
> -
> init_completion(&policy->kobj_unregister);
> INIT_WORK(&policy->update, handle_update);
>
> @@ -1169,26 +1121,25 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> ret = cpufreq_driver->init(policy);
> if (ret) {
> pr_debug("initialization failed\n");
> - goto err_set_policy_cpu;
> + goto err_init;
> }
>
> /* related cpus should atleast have policy->cpus */
> cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
policy->cpus is already updated here.
> + /* Weed out impossible CPUs. */
> + cpumask_and(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus,
> + cpu_possible_mask);
This has to be in a separate commit..
> /*
> * affected cpus must always be the one, which are online. We aren't
> * managing offline cpus here.
> */
> cpumask_and(policy->cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask);
>
> - if (!recover_policy) {
> - policy->user_policy.min = policy->min;
> - policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
> - }
> -
Where did these go? There weren't there for fun.
> down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> - for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
> + for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus)
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> @@ -1243,13 +1194,11 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> CPUFREQ_START, policy);
>
> - if (!recover_policy) {
> - ret = cpufreq_add_dev_interface(policy, dev);
> - if (ret)
> - goto err_out_unregister;
> - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> - CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
> - }
> + ret = cpufreq_add_dev_interface(policy);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_out_unregister;
> + blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> + CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
>
> write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> list_add(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list);
> @@ -1257,10 +1206,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>
> cpufreq_init_policy(policy);
>
> - if (!recover_policy) {
> - policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
> - policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
> - }
Same here.
> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
> @@ -1273,20 +1218,14 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> err_out_unregister:
> err_get_freq:
> write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> - for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
> + for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus)
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = NULL;
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -
> + up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
> cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> -err_set_policy_cpu:
> - if (recover_policy) {
> - /* Do not leave stale fallback data behind. */
> - per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback, cpu) = NULL;
> - cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
> - }
> +err_init:
> cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> -
> nomem_out:
> up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem);
>
Just to mention, I am not looking at the validity of error fallback paths
in this version. Just make sure they are all good :)
> @@ -1307,100 +1246,16 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> return __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, sif);
> }
>
> -static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> - unsigned int old_cpu)
> -{
> - struct device *cpu_dev;
> - int ret;
> -
> - /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */
> - cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu));
> -
> - sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
> - ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj);
> - if (ret) {
> - pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> -
> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> - cpumask_set_cpu(old_cpu, policy->cpus);
> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> - "cpufreq");
> -
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> - return cpu_dev->id;
> -}
> -
> -static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev,
> - struct subsys_interface *sif)
> +static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev,
> + struct subsys_interface *sif)
> {
> - unsigned int cpu = dev->id, cpus;
> - int new_cpu, ret;
> + unsigned int cpu = dev->id, j;
> + int ret = 0;
> unsigned long flags;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>
> pr_debug("%s: unregistering CPU %u\n", __func__, cpu);
>
> - write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -
> - policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
> -
> - /* Save the policy somewhere when doing a light-weight tear-down */
> - if (cpufreq_suspended)
> - per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback, cpu) = policy;
> -
> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> -
> - if (!policy) {
> - pr_debug("%s: No cpu_data found\n", __func__);
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> - if (has_target()) {
> - ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> - if (ret) {
> - pr_err("%s: Failed to stop governor\n", __func__);
> - return ret;
> - }
> - }
> -
> - if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy)
> - strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu),
> - policy->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
Where is this gone? There are several instances of code just being
removed, this is the third one. Its really really tough to catch these
in this big of a patch. Believe me.
You have to break this patch into multiple ones, see this on how to
break even simplest of the changes into multiple patches:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/6/400
Its just impossible to catch bugs that you might have introduced here due
to the size of this patch. And its taking a LOT of time for me to review this.
As I have to keep diff in one tab, new cpufreq.c in one and the old cpufreq.c
in one and then compare..
> - down_read(&policy->rwsem);
> - cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
> - up_read(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
> - sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
> - } else if (cpus > 1) {
> - new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
> - if (new_cpu >= 0) {
> - update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu);
> -
> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> - pr_debug("%s: policy Kobject moved to cpu: %d from: %d\n",
> - __func__, new_cpu, cpu);
> - }
> - } else if (cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu && cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> - cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu(policy);
> - }
> -
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> - struct subsys_interface *sif)
> -{
> - unsigned int cpu = dev->id, cpus;
> - int ret;
> - unsigned long flags;
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> -
> read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
> read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> @@ -1410,56 +1265,45 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> - cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
> -
> - if (cpus > 1)
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - /* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */
> - if (cpus == 1) {
> - if (has_target()) {
> - ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> - CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
> - if (ret) {
> - pr_err("%s: Failed to exit governor\n",
> - __func__);
> - return ret;
> - }
> - }
> -
> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> - cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> + ret = cpufreq_change_policy_cpus(policy, cpu, false);
> +#endif
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Why is the if block kept outside of #ifdef? And should we really call
change_*() from inside a #ifdef here?
>
> - /*
> - * Perform the ->exit() even during light-weight tear-down,
> - * since this is a core component, and is essential for the
> - * subsequent light-weight ->init() to succeed.
> - */
> - if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
> - cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> + if (!sif)
> + return 0;
Why? I know that, but we should have comments to describe this ...
>
> - /* Remove policy from list of active policies */
> - write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> - list_del(&policy->policy_list);
> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + if (!cpumask_empty(policy->cpus)) {
> + return 0;
> + }
You might still call this attempt a showcase of idea, but I am reviewing it
at my full capacity. And these small things just break my flow.
- Don't add {} for single liner blocks
- Add comments with proper comment style
- Run checkpatch --strict before sending patches.
>
> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> - cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> - } else if (has_target()) {
> - ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
> - if (!ret)
> - ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> + cpufreq_dev_symlink(policy, false);
>
> + if (has_target()) {
> + ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> + CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
Can come in single line
> if (ret) {
> - pr_err("%s: Failed to start governor\n", __func__);
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to exit governor\n",
> + __func__);
This too..
> return ret;
> }
> }
>
> - per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) = NULL;
> - return 0;
> + cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
> + if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
> + cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> +
> + /* Remove policy from list of active policies */
> + write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus)
> + per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = NULL;
> + list_del(&policy->policy_list);
> + write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> +
> + cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1469,18 +1313,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> */
> static int cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> {
> - unsigned int cpu = dev->id;
> - int ret;
> -
> - if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> - return 0;
Why is it part of this commit?
> - ret = __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(dev, sif);
> -
> - if (!ret)
> - ret = __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(dev, sif);
> -
> - return ret;
> + return __cpufreq_remove_dev(dev, sif);
> }
>
> static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -2295,19 +2128,12 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> if (dev) {
> switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
> case CPU_ONLINE:
> + case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
For example. This change doesn't have anything to do with this patch
and would have been so easy to review it, if it was kept separate.
Also, this would even require to wait for this complete series to make
sense and can be merged very early.
> __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL);
> break;
>
> case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> - __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(dev, NULL);
> - break;
> -
> - case CPU_POST_DEAD:
> - __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(dev, NULL);
> - break;
> -
> - case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> - __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL);
> + __cpufreq_remove_dev(dev, NULL);
@Srivatsa: You might want to have a look at this, remove sequence was
separated for some purpose and I am just not able to concentrate enough
to think of that, just too many cases running in my mind :)
> break;
> }
> }
I am still not sure if everything will work as expected as I seriously doubt
my reviewing capabilities. There might be corner cases which I am still
missing.
--
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