linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 11/15] rust: cpufreq: Add initial abstractions for cpufreq framework

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: <D98R7PHH6TYX.2DUASKIXS5F8W@proton.me>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 08:00:33 +0000
From: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Manos Pitsidianakis <manos.pitsidianakis@...aro.org>, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>, Joakim Bech <joakim.bech@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Burak Emir <bqe@...gle.com>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 11/15] rust: cpufreq: Add initial abstractions for cpufreq framework

On Wed Apr 16, 2025 at 11:37 AM CEST, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-04-25, 11:14, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 12:09:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > +#[allow(dead_code)]
>> 
>> Why is this needed?
>
> Looks like leftover from a previous version. Same for the other one.
>
> I have also made a change to the cpufreq driver now to remove
> `dead_code`, hope that is fine:

In the future, instead of using `allow`, you can try to use `expect`. It
will warn, when the code is used.

---
Cheers,
Benno