linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq

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: <CAKohpokG3P4PmmGVD7PcEMramLUv5yrhPY4MkEif3QH0e7EySA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:12:25 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	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>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted

On 2 June 2016 at 20:38, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> This series fixes all cpufreq drivers that provide a 'target_index'
>> callback or in other words, which provide a freq-table to cpufreq core,
>> to make sure they *only* use the 'index' argument to ->target_index()
>> with the policy->freq_table.
>>
>> This change allows us to remove the (duplicate) sorted-freq-table, which
>> was added by following series:
>>
>> [PATCH V2 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables
>
> Which I'm not going to apply.
>
> If this series depended on that one, please rework it.

Hi Rafael,

The first 9 patches can be applied without any dependency
on the earlier series, but not the last two.

The target of this series is to make freq-table lookup faster
and so most of its patches would make sense only if we
are trying to solve that problem. Otherwise they may not
be required at all.

I hope that you will be replying to the earlier series [1] as well,
to convey the concerns you have with it.

Thanks

--
viresh

[1] [PATCH V2 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables