linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition

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: <20160112112409.GJ1084@ubuntu>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:54:09 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mturquette@...libre.com,
	steve.muckle@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition_lock

On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
> From: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
> 
> transition_lock was introduced to serialize cpufreq transition
> notifiers. Instead of using a different lock for protecting concurrent
> modifications of policy, it is better to require that callers of
> transition notifiers implement appropriate locking (this is already the
> case AFAICS). Removing transition_lock also simplifies current locking
> scheme.

So, are you saying that the reasoning mentioned in this patch are all
wrong?

commit 12478cf0c55e ("cpufreq: Make sure frequency transitions are
serialized")

-- 
viresh