linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ

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]

Message-ID: <20150910003918.GL5266@linux>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:09:18 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
 notifier event

On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
> > CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
> > notifier.
> 
> The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-(
> 
> It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively confusing.
> 
> What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifications
> unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the former is
> just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one.

Undoubtedly this looks far better :)

But, isn't this series already applied some time back ?

> > Kill CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE and fix its usage sites.
> > 
> > This also updates the numbering of notifier events to remove holes.
> 
> Why don't you redefine CPUFREQ_ADJUST as 1 instead?

So that there is no request with 0? Yeah that could have been done.
-- 
viresh
--
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/