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: <5a805200-5990-4b8c-abd7-f6f8d1481d67@kylinos.cn>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:17:53 +0800
From: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@...inos.cn>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
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

在 2025/8/20 13:47, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> On 20-08-25, 13:42, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
>> You’re right, we didn’t really consider that case before.
>>
>> The interface of cpufreq_set_policy() does look a bit odd:
>>
>> - drivers using governors don’t really need the new_pol parameter
>>
>> - while drivers using the setpolicy method don’t need the new_gov one.
> Right, one argument is _always_ unused. If we could have handled that via a
> single argument, it would have been nice.
Sounds great.
>> I guess this might be due to some historical reasons.
>>
>> The question is whether it’s worth modifying this function, or if we should
>> just keep it as it is.
> Unless there is a better way :)

If we change cpufreq_set_policy() to only take one parameter, then we 
would need to add extra fields into struct cpufreq_policy to hold 
temporary values,

in order to avoid the issue where verify may return early and leave the 
policy in a partially updated state.

So maybe it is better not to modify it.
>