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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jLACQCJN_=k4u-e5MdEnHqJPXABU-Fq5irMjjE3fF4-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 17:20:49 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <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 Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 11:03 AM lihuisong (C) <lihuisong@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> 在 2025/11/4 2:10, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> > 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?
> Good suggestion. Thanks, got it.
> This patch doesn't depend on them.
> But patch 6/7 and 7/7 depend on this patch and patch 3/7.
> If they still need some times to discuss, I can send this patch first.

Yes, please send it separately as I said.  The rest of the series can
be rebased on it.