linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Rename cpufreq_can_do_remote

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: <1931331.r5s70rLt6c@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 11:38:03 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Rename cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs()

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:01:30 PM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This routine checks if the CPU running this code belongs to the policy
> of the target CPU or if not, can it do remote DVFS for it remotely. But
> the current name of it implies as if it is only about doing remote
> updates.
> 
> Rename it to make it more relevant.
> 
> Reported-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 2 +-
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h            | 2 +-
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c   | 2 +-
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> index ca38229b045a..871bf9cf55cf 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
>  	struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = cdbs->policy_dbs;
>  	u64 delta_ns, lst;
>  
> -	if (!cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(policy_dbs->policy))
> +	if (!cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(policy_dbs->policy))
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 87f48dd932eb..882a9b9e34bc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ struct governor_attr {
>  			 size_t count);
>  };
>  
> -static inline bool cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +static inline bool cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  	/*
>  	 * Allow remote callbacks if:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 2442decbfec7..2145655dbd9e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
>  	 * schedule the kthread.
>  	 */
>  	if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled &&
> -	    !cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(sg_policy->policy))
> +	    !cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(sg_policy->policy))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
> 

Applied, thanks!