linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/14] sched: cpufreq: Use IS

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: <20200508132129.GE10541@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 14:21:29 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, sudeep.holla@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        yzaikin@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, tkjos@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] sched: cpufreq: Use IS_ENABLED() for schedutil

On Friday 08 May 2020 at 11:00:53 (+0530), Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > -#if defined(CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL) && defined(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL)
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL)
> >  	/* Build perf. domains: */
> >  	for (i = 0; i < ndoms_new; i++) {
> >  		for (j = 0; j < n && !sched_energy_update; j++) {
> 
> Now that scheduler does not have any references to schedutil_gov and cpufreq
> has want_eas flag, do we need this CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL checks here?

Right, they're not absolutely required, but given that sugov is the only
one to have 'want_eas' set I guess there is no need to compile that in
without it, no?

Cheers,
Quentin