[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2037077.Sk8HnobN5X@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 02:50:09 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, pprakash@...eaurora.org,
Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lho@....com,
Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: CPPC: Avoid overflow when calculating desired_perf
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 04:08:28 PM Hoan Tran wrote:
> This patch fixes overflow issue when calculating the desired_perf.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hoan Tran <hotran@....com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 894e465..3e0961e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
> cpu = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu];
>
> - cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = target_freq * policy->max / cppc_dmi_max_khz;
> + cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf =
> + (u64)target_freq * policy->max / cppc_dmi_max_khz;
> freqs.old = policy->cur;
> freqs.new = target_freq;
That's on top of the CPPC material in linux-next I gather?
Which commit does it fix?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists