linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq: Reintroduce ready() callback

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: <YfQ0zFyJsjIZnCys@ripper>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:24:12 -0800
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq: Reintroduce ready() callback

On Fri 28 Jan 00:52 PST 2022, Lukasz Luba wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 1/28/22 3:25 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > This effectively revert '4bf8e582119e ("cpufreq: Remove ready()
> > callback")' (except the Chinese translation), in order to reintroduce
> 
> Is there something wrong with the Chinese translation that it has to be
> dropped? Someone has put an effort to create it, I'd assume (and also
> based on online translator) that it's correct.
> 

I don't expect there to be anything wrong with the Chinese translation,
unfortunately "git revert" trips on a merge conflict and I'm
unfortunately not able to resolve that on my machine.

> > the ready callback.
> > 
> > This is needed in order to be able to leave the thermal pressure
> > interrupts in the Qualcomm CPUfreq driver disabled during
> > initialization, so that it doesn't fire while related_cpus are still 0.
> 
> If you are going to push the 2nd patch into stable tree, then you would
> also need this one.
> 

That's correct. This patch is however not a stable change in itself, so
I didn't mark it as such. I can work with the stable maintainers to let
them know that this patch is needs to go along with patch 2 - although
I've seen cases before where they automagically resolved that.

Regards,
Bjorn