linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Fix asym_fits_capacity() task

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: <Ya4qJHxUbKMzl04d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 16:20:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Fix asym_fits_capacity() task_util
 type

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 02:14:10PM +0000, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> task_util is an unsigned long value, compared with a CPU capacity which is
> unsigned long as well. There's no need for an intermediate implicit int
> cast.
> 
> Fixes: b4c9c9f15649 ("sched/fair: Prefer prev cpu in asymmetric wakeup path")

Do either of these patches actually *fix* anything? Afaict they're an
absolute no-op, even in terms of code-gen due to the promotion rules.

Yes, its arguably nicer to not rely on those implicit promotions etc..
but I don't think this warrants a Fixes tag or even being split in two
patches.

Hmm?