linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend

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]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:19:37 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.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 07/16/2014 01:30 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 05:58, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> +       if (!cpus && cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu &&
>>> cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
>>> +               cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu(policy);
>>> +       }
>>>
>>
>> Viresh, I tried your suggestion (and my initial thought too) to combine this
>> as an if/else with the previous if. But the indentation got nasty and made
>> it hard to read. I'm sure the compiler will optimize it. So, I would prefer
>> to leave it this way.
>
> Okay, I gave that comment again :)
>
> Try this:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index f72b2b7..092a0ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -991,8 +991,10 @@ static int cpufreq_change_policy_cpus(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                                          CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU, policy);
>          }
>
> -       cpus = !cpumask_empty(policy->cpus);
> -       if (has_target() && cpus) {
> +       if (!cpumask_empty(policy->cpus)) {
> +               if (!has_target())
> +                       goto unlock;
> +
>                  ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
>                  if (!ret)
>                          ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> @@ -1001,9 +1003,7 @@ static int cpufreq_change_policy_cpus(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                          pr_err("%s: Failed to start governor\n", __func__);
>                          goto unlock;
>                  }
> -       }
> -
> -       if (!cpus && cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu && cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> +       } else if (cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu && cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
>                  cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu(policy);
>          }
>

Not bad :) I'll take it.

-Saravana

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/