| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKohpokrkRRBLcpWD8fc1LXYjT8AbxsD9x_x5akgtN_6=zEocg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:36:39 +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 v4 5/5] cpufreq: Delete dead code related to policy save/restore
On 25 July 2014 06:37, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> @@ -1142,31 +1124,11 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>
> /* If we get this far, this is the first time we are adding the
> * policy */
We don't need this comment as well..
> - recover_policy = false;
> -
> - /*
> - * 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);
Since we don't do this anymore, what will happen to policy->cpu after
all CPUs of a policy are hotplugged-out and then brought back in?
> - else
> - policy->cpu = cpu;
> + policy = cpufreq_policy_alloc();
> + if (!policy)
> + goto nomem_out;
>
> + policy->cpu = cpu;
> cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpumask_of(cpu));
>
> init_completion(&policy->kobj_unregister);
> @@ -1190,10 +1152,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> */
> cpumask_and(policy->cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask);
>
> - if (!recover_policy) {
> - policy->user_policy.min = policy->min;
> - policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
> - }
> + policy->user_policy.min = policy->min;
> + policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
>
> down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> @@ -1252,13 +1212,11 @@ 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, dev);
> + 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);
> @@ -1266,10 +1224,8 @@ 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;
> - }
> + policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
> + policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
> @@ -1289,13 +1245,7 @@ err_get_freq:
> 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);
> - }
> cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> -
> nomem_out:
> up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem);
>
> @@ -1442,8 +1392,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> }
> }
>
> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> - cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
> + cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
Sure? This will free kobject.
> /*
> * Perform the ->exit() even during light-weight tear-down,
> @@ -1458,8 +1407,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> list_del(&policy->policy_list);
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> - cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> + cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
Same here.
> }
>
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) = NULL;
> --
> 1.8.2.1
>
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists