[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hsrG1WHwUDSCbUtxQSjdQV_f30xiQHUE_A=jK9ZSyOVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:08:21 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, sensor1010@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 7:49 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> The exit() callback is optional and shouldn't be called without checking
> a valid pointer first.
>
> Also, we must clear freq_table pointer even if the exit() callback isn't
> present.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 66e10a19d76a..fd9c3ed21f49 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1679,10 +1679,13 @@ static void __cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu, struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> */
> if (cpufreq_driver->offline) {
> cpufreq_driver->offline(policy);
> - } else if (cpufreq_driver->exit) {
> - cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> - policy->freq_table = NULL;
> + return;
> }
> +
> + if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
> + cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
> +
> + policy->freq_table = NULL;
> }
>
> static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> @@ -1740,7 +1743,7 @@ static void cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
> }
>
> /* We did light-weight exit earlier, do full tear down now */
> - if (cpufreq_driver->offline)
> + if (cpufreq_driver->offline && cpufreq_driver->exit)
> cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
>
> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> --
I have applied this patch (for 6.10 because I don't think it is
urgent) because it addresses both issues with missing ->exit() driver
callback checks. I honestly don't think it would be better to apply a
separate patch for each of them.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists