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  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, 26 Jun 2019 12:07:16 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, edubezval@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
        "open list:CPU FREQUENCY DRIVERS - ARM BIG LITTLE" 
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:TI BANDGAP AND THERMAL DRIVER" 
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/3] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Unregister with the
 policy

On 26-06-19, 08:02, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 26/06/2019 04:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-06-19, 13:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> index aee024e42618..f07454249fbc 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -1379,8 +1379,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> >>  		cpufreq_driver->ready(policy);
> >>  
> >>  	if (cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver))
> >> -		policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> >> -
> >> +		of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> >> +	
> > 
> > We don't need any error checking here anymore ?
> 
> There was no error checking initially. This comment and the others below
> are for an additional patch IMO, not a change in this one.

right, but ...

> >> -void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev)
> >> +void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_cdev;
> >>  	bool last;
> >>  
> >> -	if (!cdev)
> >> -		return;

we used to return without any errors from here. Now we will have
problems if regsitering fails for some reason.

-- 
viresh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists