Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 12-02-16, 17:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > > > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. > > What

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. What about dropping the check completely ? -- viresh

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
= fattr->store(policy, buf, count); > > - else > > - ret = -EIO; > > + up_write(>rwsem); > > + } > > > > - up_write(>rwsem); > > -unlock: > > I have no problems with the patch as is, but how are we going t

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
ve no problems with the patch as is, but how are we going to benefit from > it > ? > > 'if (fattr->show/store)' is never ever going to fail, unless we have a bug > here. Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. What about dropping the check completely ? -- viresh

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 12-02-16, 17:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > > > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-12 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. > > What

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-11 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 11-02-16, 02:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to > acquire all of the locks to check if the struct freq_attr they want > to use really provides the callbacks they need as expected, so change > them to

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-11 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 11-02-16, 02:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to > acquire all of the locks to check if the struct freq_attr they want > to use really provides the callbacks they need as

[PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-10 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
From: Rafael J. Wysocki The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to acquire all of the locks to check if the struct freq_attr they want to use really provides the callbacks they need as expected, so change them to avoid doing that. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki ---

[PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()

2016-02-10 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
From: Rafael J. Wysocki The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to acquire all of the locks to check if the struct freq_attr they want to use really provides the callbacks they need as expected, so change them to avoid doing that.