linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide sched_freq

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: <20210122074439.mq5wz5p3avenhnth@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:14:39 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Peter Puhov <peter.puhov@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide
 sched_freq_tick() callback

On 19-01-21, 19:05, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> I think it would improve clarity a lot by having a single topology
> function, with clear comments on which path is taken when.
> 
> In regards to them sharing code, there's not much code they could be
> sharing, as one just does some simple math on provided values.
> I attempted to have a single function for frequency invariance at some
> point [1], as the logic for the computation is the same, but I could
> never convince myself the clarity gained was worth the changes. But
> I really like this version of your code for this purpose as well.
> 
> But I'll leave that to your judgement.

Hmm, I don't really agree to merging those two paths into a single
routine unless we share something there. So I would like to skip that
for now :)

All other comments accepted.

Thanks.

-- 
viresh