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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:43:45 +0100 From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, linux@....linux.org.uk, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, arnd.bergmann@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] arch_topology: Return 0 or -ve errors from topology_parse_cpu_capacity() On 22/06/17 19:58, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 22-06-17, 10:39, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 21/06/17 10:16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Use the standard way of returning errors instead of returning 0(failure) > > > OR 1(success) and making it hard to read. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 8 ++++---- > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > index bf949a763dbe..a7ef4c35855e 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) > > > continue; > > > } > > > > > > - if (topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cn, cpu)) { > > > + if (!topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cn, cpu)) { > > > > Not sure why you want to change this. > > I just didn't find it straight forward to read. > > > I currently read it as "if cpu_capacity parsing succedeed" continue with > > next CPU, otherwise we set cap_from_dt to false and fall back to using > > efficiencies. > > Actually, I can just make the return type bool and that should solve > the issues I was seeing and keep the code as it is. > > Will that be fine ? > Think so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists