linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2 1/2] cpufreq: tegra194: save CPU data to avoid repeated SMP calls

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]

Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:47:35 +0530
From:   Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:     <rafael@...nel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <treding@...dia.com>, <jonathanh@...dia.com>, <bbasu@...dia.com>,
        <amiettinen@...dia.com>, Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/2] cpufreq: tegra194: save CPU data to avoid repeated
 SMP calls



On 28/09/23 12:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 01-09-23, 22:11, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>> @@ -131,19 +132,10 @@ static int tegra234_get_cpu_ndiv(u32 cpu, u32 cpuid, u32 clusterid, u64 *ndiv)
>>   static void tegra234_set_cpu_ndiv(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u64 ndiv)
>>   {
> 
>> +     for_each_cpu_and(cpu, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
> 
> (Yes this is existing code, but ..) you don't need to perform AND with
> cpu_online_mask as policy->cpus should only contain currently online CPUs.
> 
> Please check if you ever see it differently.
> 

I think this was kept to be safe.
Should I removed the AND in v3 or send separate patch?

>> +     data->cpu_data = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, data->soc->num_clusters *
>> +                                   data->soc->maxcpus_per_cluster,
>> +                                   sizeof(struct tegra_cpu_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> This should be: sizeof(*data->cpu_data) instead. Didn't checkpatch complain
> about it ?
> 
> --
> viresh

Checkpatch didn't highlight it.
Will do the change in v3.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta