linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree

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: <20250528135020.79fec9ca@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 13:50:20 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Dhananjay Ugwekar <dhananjay.ugwekar@....com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:23:26 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:55:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   608a76b65288 ("cpufreq/amd-pstate: Add support for the "Requested CPU Min frequency" BIOS option")
> > 
> > from the pm tree and commit:
> > 
> >   d7484babd2c4 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl_on_cpu()' to 'rdmsrq_on_cpu()'")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (the former removed a line updated by the latter) and can
> > carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
> > concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
> > upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
> > also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
> > tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.  
> 
> Actually it needed the fix up below.
> 
> 
> diff --cc drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index d96bb3e202ee,66fdc74f13ef..0d4c0de89a00
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@@ -389,10 -389,9 +389,10 @@@ static inline int amd_pstate_cppc_enabl
>   static int msr_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>   {
>   	union perf_cached perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->perf);
>  -	u64 cap1, numerator;
>  +	u64 cap1, numerator, cppc_req;
>  +	u8 min_perf;
>   
> - 	int ret = rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1,
> + 	int ret = rdmsrq_safe_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_CAP1,
>   				     &cap1);
>   	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
> @@@ -401,22 -400,6 +401,22 @@@
>   	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
>   
> - 	ret = rdmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req);
> ++	ret = rdmsrq_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, &cppc_req);
>  +	if (ret)
>  +		return ret;
>  +
>  +	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached, cppc_req);
>  +	min_perf = FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, cppc_req);
>  +
>  +	/*
>  +	 * Clear out the min_perf part to check if the rest of the MSR is 0, if yes, this is an
>  +	 * indication that the min_perf value is the one specified through the BIOS option
>  +	 */
>  +	cppc_req &= ~(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK);
>  +
>  +	if (!cppc_req)
>  +		perf.bios_min_perf = min_perf;
>  +
>   	perf.highest_perf = numerator;
>   	perf.max_limit_perf = numerator;
>   	perf.min_limit_perf = FIELD_GET(AMD_CPPC_LOWEST_PERF_MASK, cap1);

This is now a conflict between the pm tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped