Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu idle cooling driver | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:10:07 +0200 |
| |
On 27/03/2018 05:43, Leo Yan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 23/02/2018 08:34, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 21-02-18, 16:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> [ ... ] >> >>>> +static s64 cpuidle_cooling_runtime(struct cpuidle_cooling_device *idle_cdev) >>>> +{ >>>> + s64 next_wakeup; >>>> + int state = idle_cdev->state; >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * The function must never be called when there is no >>>> + * mitigation because: >>>> + * - that does not make sense >>>> + * - we end up with a division by zero >>>> + */ >>>> + BUG_ON(!state); >>> >>> As there is no locking in place, we can surely hit this case. What if >>> the state changed to 0 right before this routine was called ? >>> >>> I would suggest we should just return 0 in that case and get away with >>> the BUG_ON(). > > Here if 'state' equals to 0 and we return 0, then the return value will > be same with when 'state' = 100; this lets the return value confused. > > I think for 'state' = 0, should we return -1 so indicate the hrtimer > will not be set for this case?
Yeah, I will look at how to make this smoother.
Thanks
-- Daniel
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
|  |