linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support

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: <20210729111513.djd5hrbz6jb453xp@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:45:13 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        steev@...i.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt
 support

On 29-07-21, 07:13, Thara Gopinath wrote:
> So the interrupt handler is a threaded handler. I moved it in v4 since one
> of the "_opp" api has an underlying mutex and was causing issues. So using a
> mutex should be pretty safe in this case.

Ahh I see.

> IIUC, the main change you are suggesting below is to include enable_irq() /
> mod_delayed_work() under the spin_lock as well. Is that right ? In which
> case isn't a mutex better than spinlock?

Yeah, sure.

-- 
viresh