linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] arch_topology: Get rid of "cap_parsing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170622164410.brenzszdgweucshj@e106622-lin>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:44:10 +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 1/5] arch_topology: Get rid of "cap_parsing_done"

On 22/06/17 19:59, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-06-17, 10:44, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 21/06/17 10:16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > We can reuse "cap_parsing_failed" instead of keeping an additional
> > > variable here.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 5 ++---
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > index d1c33a85059e..8239a6232808 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > @@ -161,7 +161,6 @@ int __init topology_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > >  
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> > >  static cpumask_var_t cpus_to_visit;
> > > -static bool cap_parsing_done;
> > >  static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work);
> > >  static DECLARE_WORK(parsing_done_work, parsing_done_workfn);
> > >  
> > > @@ -173,7 +172,7 @@ init_cpu_capacity_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > >  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = data;
> > >  	int cpu;
> > >  
> > > -	if (cap_parsing_failed || cap_parsing_done)
> > > +	if (cap_parsing_failed)
> > >  		return 0;
> > >  
> > >  	switch (val) {
> > > @@ -193,7 +192,7 @@ init_cpu_capacity_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > >  			topology_normalize_cpu_scale();
> > >  			kfree(raw_capacity);
> > >  			pr_debug("cpu_capacity: parsing done\n");
> > > -			cap_parsing_done = true;
> > > +			cap_parsing_failed = true;
> > 
> > But we didn't actually failed here, right?
> 
> Yeah. So I can actually move this patch to the end of the series and
> cap_parsing_done can be dropped then as we will end up using
> !raw_capacity instead. And the end result will stay the same.
> 

OK.