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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211207094826.GA852689@ubiquitous>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 09:48:26 +0000
From:   Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?

As far as I know it doesn't change anything functionally speaking. So yeah,
let's consider it as a cleanup. I'll merge the changes and drop the Fix tag.