linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] cpufreq: Handle sorted frequency tables more efficiently

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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:26:01 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. 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>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] cpufreq: Handle sorted frequency tables more efficiently

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:

> So IMO all of the callers should be made clamp the target frequency
> between min and max and those checks should be dropped from the
> low-level helpers.

Okay, so doing this from all these very low level helpers can be avoided
by moving them to cpufreq_frequency_table_target() at least for now.

Later on we can see on how we can update the callers and see how
it works best.

Thanks for the review.

--
viresh