On 02-08-19, 11:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, August 2, 2019 5:48:19 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 01-08-19, 10:57, Doug Smythies wrote: > > > Disagree. > > > All I did was use a flag where it used to be set to UNIT_MAX, to basically > > > implement the same thing. > > > > And the earlier code wasn't fully correct as well, that's why we tried > > to fix it earlier. > > Your argument seems to be "There was an earlier problem related to this, which > was fixed, so it is fragile and I'd rather avoid it". Still, you are > claiming that the > code was in fact incorrect and you are not giving convincing arguments to > support that. > > > So introducing the UINT_MAX thing again would be > > wrong, even if it fixes the problem for you. > > Would it be wrong, because it would reintroduce the fragile code, or would it > be wrong, because it would re-introduce a bug? What bug if so?
There will be two issues here if that patch is reintroduced: - It will cause the BUG to reappear, which was fixed by the earlier commit. The commit log of ecd28842912 explains the bug in detail. - And overriding next_freq as a flag will make the code fragile and we may have similar bugs coming up. But yeah, lets continue discussion on the intel-pstate patch now. -- viresh
