On 16-05-20, 15:52, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:58:47PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > @@ -2554,7 +2554,7 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state) > > > break; > > > } > > > - return ret; > > > + return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > > } > > > int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state) > > > > IMO it is better to update the caller of this function to handle the > > positive value possibly returned by it correctly. > > Could you elaborate why? Viresh seems to be ok with this solution.
And it is absolutely fine for Rafael to not agree with it :) > As I see it the caller doesn't expect the positive value returned by the > original freq_qos_update_request(). It just doesn't need to know whether the > effective policy has been updated or not, it only needs to make sure the > operations has been successful. Moreover the positive value is related only > to the !last! active policy, which doesn't give the caller a full picture > of the policy change anyway. So taking all of these into account I'd leave the > fix as is. Rafael: This function is called via a function pointer, which can call this or a platform dependent routine (like in acpi-cpufreq.c), and it would be reasonable IMO for the return of that callback to only look for 0 or negative values, as is generally done in the kernel. And so this solution looked okay to me as the positive return is coming from the implementation detail here. -- viresh
