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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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