linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Reuse gov_attr

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jrtBjT7j-gb1ZQExBOfntqEqeybb0CCH=r_1F2u_t43A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2016 13:43:05 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Reuse gov_attr_* macros in schedutil governor

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 18-05-16, 23:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > These macros can be used by governors which don't use the common
>> > governor code present in cpufreq_governor.c and should be moved to the
>> > relevant header.
>> >
>> > Now that they are getting moved to the right header file, reuse them in
>> > schedutil governor as well (that required rename of show/store
>> > routines).
>>
>> I'm not sure what the benefit is to be honest.
>>
>> It adds one level of indirection to the definition of rate_limit_us,
>> but why is that better?
>
> I agree.
>
> I did it because I am required to use these macros for the
> interactive-governor and have to move them to cpufreq.h anyway.
>
> Now that we have to move them out, I thought that we should perhaps
> use them for schedutil as well. This would look more relevant to
> schedutil once it has more tunables instead of just one.

OK, then let's defer this change until we have interactive in the tree
(which still may or may not happen).