[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h0RNt5+SCeXg7pGgGmu1T0Hyk9kYrgia+kWHsQeE8cPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:37:18 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: Fix uninitialized variable bug
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:05 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:41:05PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:19 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The "tick" variable isn't initialized if "lapic_timer_always_reliable"
> > > is true.
> >
> > If lapic_timer_always_reliable is true, then
> > static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT) must also be true AFAICS.
> >
> > So the lapic_timer_always_reliable check in there looks redundant.
>
> Can the lapic_timer_always_reliable variable just be removed entirely
> and replaced with an static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT) check?
Yes, it can.
See https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11623309/
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists