linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: simplify cpufreq_set

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250819105925.34o5f5attd5rboh7@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:29:25 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
Cc: "rafael J . wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	zhenglifeng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: simplify cpufreq_set_policy() interface

On 19-08-25, 18:39, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>  static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> -			      struct cpufreq_governor *new_gov,
> -			      unsigned int new_pol);
> +			      struct cpufreq_governor *new_gov);

A driver will either support the policy or the governor. If we are
keeping `new_gov` around, I don't see why `new_pol` should be dropped.
And changing the policy for a `setpolicy` driver should happen from
within cpufreq_set_policy() instead of the caller. Also there is at
least one case (verify()) where we may end up returning early, before
changing the policy.

-- 
viresh