linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove obsolete comment

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: <CAJZ5v0g0mBTkxeHBWff0koYG4NhkN2wFwkKR5_4XUq-1U0maFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:42:59 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "ggherdovich@...e.cz" <ggherdovich@...e.cz>, 
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove obsolete comment

On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 4:54 AM Zhang, Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 14:13 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > So I'm proposing to return the index of the highest valid state
> > > directly
> > > in acpi_processor_power_verify() and then we don't need this loop any
> > > more.
> >
> > OK, so I'd prefer to first rename power.count to power.max_index
> > (which it really is) and then make the changes you have proposed.
>
> well, in other cases, like in acpi_processor_evaluate_cst() and in the
> _LPI case, power.count is still set and used as the total number of
> cstates.
>
> in this acpi_processor_get_cstate_info() case, maybe we should drop this
> change
> -               working++;
> +               working = i;
> So power.count is still consistent in all these cases.

OK

> For the current for loop that overrides power.count, I think we can just
> drop it, because no one checks power.count after it, which means no one
> actually uses power.count as max_index.

Sounds good to me.