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: <20160127101020.GL10898@e106622-lin>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:10:20 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the
 policy list

On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > > primitive instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > >  {
> > > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> > 
> > Which branch is this patch based on?
> 
> My bad! This is based on your branch  git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
> upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
> cleanup patches.
> 

No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :)

Best,

- Juri

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ