linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/6] cpufreq: Replace few CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS checks with has

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: <0660b023a0d80c63ec7a1f7fcb692de9a9f4d604.1560944014.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:05:38 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] cpufreq: Replace few CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS checks with has_target()

CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS was introduced in a very old commit from pre-2.6
kernel release commit 6a4a93f9c0d5 ("[CPUFREQ] Fix 'out of sync'
issue").

Probably the initial idea was to just avoid these checks for set_policy
type drivers and then things got changed over the years. And it is very
unclear why these checks are there at all.

Replace the CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS check with has_target(), which makes
more sense now.

Also remove () around freq comparison statement as they aren't required
and checkpatch also warns for them.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++--------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 54befd775bd6..e59194c2c613 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -359,12 +359,10 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		 * which is not equal to what the cpufreq core thinks is
 		 * "old frequency".
 		 */
-		if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
-			if (policy->cur && (policy->cur != freqs->old)) {
-				pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n",
-					 freqs->old, policy->cur);
-				freqs->old = policy->cur;
-			}
+		if (has_target() && policy->cur && policy->cur != freqs->old) {
+			pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n",
+				 freqs->old, policy->cur);
+			freqs->old = policy->cur;
 		}
 
 		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
@@ -1618,8 +1616,7 @@ static unsigned int __cpufreq_get(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
 		return ret_freq;
 
-	if (ret_freq && policy->cur &&
-		!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
+	if (has_target() && ret_freq && policy->cur) {
 		/* verify no discrepancy between actual and
 					saved value exists */
 		if (unlikely(ret_freq != policy->cur)) {
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b