linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger

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: <9590b0fb-f297-4e6a-9265-ba7a17abef31@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 14:24:46 +0800
From: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: <rafael@...nel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
	<jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>,
	<lihuisong@...wei.com>, <yubowen8@...wei.com>, <zhangpengjie2@...wei.com>,
	<wangzhi12@...wei.com>, <linhongye@...artners.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger_state()
 optimization

On 2025/12/2 12:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-12-25, 09:32, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
>> On 2025/12/1 11:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 28-11-25, 17:13, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
>>>> Simplify the error handling branch code in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++--------
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> index a4399e5490da..a725747572c9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -2824,18 +2824,13 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
>>>>  
>>>>  		ret = policy_set_boost(policy, state);
>>>>  		if (ret)
>>>> -			goto err_reset_state;
>>>> +			break;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (ret)
>>>> -		goto err_reset_state;
>>>> -
>>>>  	cpus_read_unlock();
>>>>  
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -err_reset_state:
>>>> -	cpus_read_unlock();
>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>
>>> Maybe we can make this `if (likely(!ret))`
>>
>> For the platforms which are not boost supported, this will never be
>> matched. Is `likely` OK in this situation?
> 
> Ideally they won't have a `boost` file in sysfs, and if they have it, we don't
> really need to optimize the failure case.

I see. Then I think the `if (ret)` in the loop should be
`if (unlikely(ret))` too.