linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Remove un-necessary cpumask

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: <20221102065035.nf7m33acsjp4foit@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 12:20:35 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     andersson@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, johan@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Remove un-necessary
 cpumask_empty() check

On 25-10-22, 13:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> CPUFreq core will always set the "policy->cpus" bitmask with the bitfield
> of the CPU that goes first per domain/policy. So there is no way the
> "policy->cpus" bitmask will be empty during qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index d5ef3c66c762..a5b3b8d0e164 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -552,11 +552,6 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  		data->per_core_dcvs = true;
>  
>  	qcom_get_related_cpus(index, policy->cpus);
> -	if (cpumask_empty(policy->cpus)) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d failed to get related CPUs\n", index);
> -		ret = -ENOENT;
> -		goto error;
> -	}
>  
>  	policy->driver_data = data;
>  	policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true;

Applied. Thanks.

I tried applying 4-6 as well, but git am failed. You can send such
cleanups separately, so they don't need to wait for others to reviews.

-- 
viresh