linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only used in slow path

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: <20161124061203.GF9376@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:42:03 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only
 used in slow path

On 24-11-16, 05:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Firstly, please start changes to scheduler code with a verb. This title:
> 
>   Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only used in slow path
> 
> is totally inadequate as it's a statement that says nothing about the _change_.
> 
> What does the patch do? Does it add, remove, modify, fix or clean up?

Thanks for the tip. I have sometimes seen similar subjects-line in patches from
core developers and so thought it might be right. But yes I understand what you
are saying and will take care of this in future across all subsystems.

> * Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > Execute the irq-work specific initialization/exit code only when the
> > fast path isn't available.
> 
> Is this an optimization? A correctness fix?

Its an optimization but yeah I will try to explain a bit more next time.

-- 
viresh