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
