linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] cpufreq: Use 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190619142029.4nxlgywlayx4fzpa@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:50:29 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy

On 19-06-19, 14:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:36 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere,
> > as it is already done at several places.
> 
> That's OK
> 
> > Maybe we should also use !has_target() for setpolicy case to use only one expression
> > for this differentiation.
> 
> But I'm not sure what you mean here?

At many places in code we are doing tests like:

if (cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
        xxx
}

Maybe we can write them as well like:

if (!has_target()) {
        xxx
}

-- 
viresh