linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove useless codes about the verification of cstate count

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: <CAJZ5v0ifcuqF7=+NowYOfPbKfGq5XCe4+mg_9Sv8gRHyMZ0gNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 19:10:48 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sudeep.Holla@....com, linuxarm@...wei.com, 
	jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, zhenglifeng1@...wei.com, 
	yubowen8@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] ACPI: processor: idle: Remove useless codes about
 the verification of cstate count

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 9:42 AM Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> The acpi_processor_setup_cstates and acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx will
> be called after successfully obtaining the power information. These setup
> functions have their own main role, but also verify the validity of cstate
> count.
>
> Actually, the acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst will return failure if the
> cstate count is zero and acpi_processor_get_power_info will return failure.
>
> So the verification of cstate count in these functions are useless.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index 4627b00257e6..1f332f02d273 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -732,8 +732,8 @@ static int __cpuidle acpi_idle_enter_s2idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> -                                          struct cpuidle_device *dev)
> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> +                                           struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>  {
>         int i, count = ACPI_IDLE_STATE_START;
>         struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
> @@ -753,14 +753,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>                 if (count == CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX)
>                         break;
>         }
> -
> -       if (!count)
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -
> -       return 0;
>  }
>
> -static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> +static void acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>  {
>         int i, count;
>         struct acpi_processor_cx *cx;
> @@ -822,11 +817,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cstates(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>         }
>
>         drv->state_count = count;
> -
> -       if (!count)
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -
> -       return 0;
>  }
>
>  static inline void acpi_processor_cstate_first_run_checks(void)
> @@ -1248,7 +1238,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_states(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>         if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>                 return acpi_processor_setup_lpi_states(pr);
>
> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
> +       acpi_processor_setup_cstates(pr);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  /**
> @@ -1268,7 +1259,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_dev(struct acpi_processor *pr,
>         if (pr->flags.has_lpi)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       return acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
> +       acpi_processor_setup_cpuidle_cx(pr, dev);
> +       return 0;
>  }
>
>  static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> --

Does this patch depend on the previous patches in the series?  If it
doesn't, why don't you send it independently?