linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 09/13] cpufreq: governor: Move common sysfs tunables to 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: <20160208130330.GH8294@vireshk>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:33:30 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 09/13] cpufreq: governor: Move common sysfs tunables
 to cpufreq_governor.c

On 08-02-16, 13:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> My most fundamental concern here is that attributes that don't apply
> to a particular governor should not appear in sysfs at all when that
> governor is in use (instead of appearing and always returning -EINVAL

s/is in use/is not in use/ ??

> which is sort of silly).

But who said that I have made them available always ? Sorry, I didn't
understood your input.

I have just moved the show/store callbacks and the struct
governor_attr definition to cpufreq_governor.c. And sysfs files are
created only for the ones that are valid for a governor.

> That doesn't mean the common code cannot access them, though.  They
> still can be present in the data structure, but it may be a good idea
> to set them to special values clearly meaning "invalid" then.

Or are you saying that we should move all the tunables to dbs_data ?

-- 
viresh