linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpupower : frequency-set -r option misses the last cpu in related cpu list

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 16:21:08 +0200
From:   Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To:     ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     Abhishek Goel <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpupower : frequency-set -r option misses the last cpu in related cpu list

Hi,

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 2:12:34 PM CEST Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Abhishek,
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:02 PM Abhishek Goel

...
 
> >                                 bitmask_setbit(cpus_chosen, cpus->cpu);
> >                                 cpus = cpus->next;
> >                         
> >                         }
> > 
> > +                       /* Set the last cpu in related cpus list */
> > +                       bitmask_setbit(cpus_chosen, cpus->cpu);
> 
> Perhaps you could convert the while() loop to a do ..  while(). That
> should will ensure
> that we terminate the loop after setting the last valid CPU.

It would do exactly the same, right?
IMHO it's not worth the extra hassle of resubmitting. Setting the last value 
outside a while loop is rather common.

I do not have a CPU with related cores at hand.
If you tested this it would be nice to see this pushed:

Reviewed-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>

Thanks!

   Thomas