linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 03/10] cpufreq: Split cpufreq

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: <20250401084354.r36er6wfqflbs2jw@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:13:54 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/10] cpufreq: Split cpufreq_online()

On 01-04-25, 14:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Instead of jumping back to the function, won't declaring the label here and
> jumping from the earlier code to the end of function more readable ?
> 
>                 goto out_unlock;
>         
>         out_destroy_policy:
>         	for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus)
>         		remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, j, get_cpu_device(j));
>         
>         out_offline_policy:
>         	if (cpufreq_driver->offline)
>         		cpufreq_driver->offline(policy);
>         
>         out_exit_policy:
>         	if (cpufreq_driver->exit)
>         		cpufreq_driver->exit(policy);
>         
>         out_clear_policy:
>         	cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
>         
>         out_unlock:
>               up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>               return ret;

And now I see that after 4/10, it doesn't matter anymore.

-- 
viresh