linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] OPP: Reorder code in _opp_set_required_opps

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: <CAPDyKFpHy-32h+yu4X-psGqpaqFNpY0CgveHgd_3Zu57KPg3Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 12:11:45 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] OPP: Reorder code in _opp_set_required_opps_genpd()

On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 10:48, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Reorder code in _opp_set_required_opps_genpd() to reduce duplicate code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/opp/core.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/opp/core.c b/drivers/opp/core.c
> index f42b663a4d8b..3516e79cf743 100644
> --- a/drivers/opp/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/opp/core.c
> @@ -1076,7 +1076,18 @@ static int _opp_set_required_opps_genpd(struct device *dev,
>  {
>         struct device **genpd_virt_devs =
>                 opp_table->genpd_virt_devs ? opp_table->genpd_virt_devs : &dev;
> -       int i, ret = 0;
> +       int index, target, delta, ret;
> +
> +       /* Scaling up? Set required OPPs in normal order, else reverse */
> +       if (!scaling_down) {
> +               index = 0;
> +               target = opp_table->required_opp_count;
> +               delta = 1;
> +       } else {
> +               index = opp_table->required_opp_count - 1;
> +               target = -1;
> +               delta = -1;
> +       }
>
>         /*
>          * Acquire genpd_virt_dev_lock to make sure we don't use a genpd_dev
> @@ -1084,24 +1095,17 @@ static int _opp_set_required_opps_genpd(struct device *dev,
>          */
>         mutex_lock(&opp_table->genpd_virt_dev_lock);
>
> -       /* Scaling up? Set required OPPs in normal order, else reverse */
> -       if (!scaling_down) {
> -               for (i = 0; i < opp_table->required_opp_count; i++) {
> -                       ret = _set_performance_state(dev, genpd_virt_devs[i], opp, i);
> -                       if (ret)
> -                               break;
> -               }
> -       } else {
> -               for (i = opp_table->required_opp_count - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> -                       ret = _set_performance_state(dev, genpd_virt_devs[i], opp, i);
> -                       if (ret)
> -                               break;
> -               }
> +       while (index != target) {
> +               ret = _set_performance_state(dev, genpd_virt_devs[index], opp, index);
> +               if (ret)
> +                       break;
> +
> +               index += delta;
>         }
>
>         mutex_unlock(&opp_table->genpd_virt_dev_lock);
>
> -       return ret;
> +       return 0;

Why always return 0 and not the error code anymore?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe