Hi Pratik, Thanks.
I have checked: - for matching puts/gets - that all the '.' to '->' conversions, aud uses of '&' check out - that the Snowpatch checks pass (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1255580/) On that basis: Reviewed-by: Daniel Axtens <d...@axtens.net> Regards, Daniel > The patch avoids allocating cpufreq_policy on stack hence fixing frame > size overflow in 'powernv_cpufreq_work_fn' > > Fixes: 227942809b52 ("cpufreq: powernv: Restore cpu frequency to policy->cur > on unthrottling") > Signed-off-by: Pratik Rajesh Sampat <psam...@linux.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c > b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c > index 56f4bc0d209e..20ee0661555a 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c > @@ -902,6 +902,7 @@ static struct notifier_block powernv_cpufreq_reboot_nb = { > void powernv_cpufreq_work_fn(struct work_struct *work) > { > struct chip *chip = container_of(work, struct chip, throttle); > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy; > unsigned int cpu; > cpumask_t mask; > > @@ -916,12 +917,14 @@ void powernv_cpufreq_work_fn(struct work_struct *work) > chip->restore = false; > for_each_cpu(cpu, &mask) { > int index; > - struct cpufreq_policy policy; > > - cpufreq_get_policy(&policy, cpu); > - index = cpufreq_table_find_index_c(&policy, policy.cur); > - powernv_cpufreq_target_index(&policy, index); > - cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, policy.cpus); > + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > + if (!policy) > + continue; > + index = cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, policy->cur); > + powernv_cpufreq_target_index(policy, index); > + cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, policy->cpus); > + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); > } > out: > put_online_cpus(); > -- > 2.24.1
