linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] thermal: core: Drop redundant thermal instance checks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gd2Q-x9kVYUaDY05S+SNur50tEVnQ4UDK66G45xX2ywg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:52:42 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] thermal: core: Drop redundant thermal instance checks

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:56 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/08/2024 13:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 1:01 PM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/08/2024 17:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >>>
> >>> Because the trip and cdev pointers are sufficient to identify a thermal
> >>> instance holding them unambiguously, drop the additional thermal zone
> >>> checks from two loops walking the list of thermal instances in a
> >>> thermal zone.
> >>>
> >>> No intentional functional impact.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if the thermal_instance 'tz' field could be removed too ?
> >
> > It is used in a debug printk in __thermal_cdev_update().  If that
> > message can be dropped, then yes, but that would be a separate patch
> > anyway.
>
> Yes, I don't think it is really worth the debug message here

OK