From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF2AACA0EFF for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1096444.1451147 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1urIXJ-0004ex-Ey; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:09 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1096444.1451147; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1urIXJ-0004eq-C2; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:09 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1096444; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:08 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1urIXI-0004eR-5T for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:08 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1urIXG-009Igt-0N; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:06 +0000 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1da:8420:b77:bd5:6e45:7633] (helo=l14) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1urIXF-004FWk-32; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 15:58:06 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=n83R/rRngWIHg1o05rluNflzrTW4r7FqR3kSDLPxz7A=; b=VZ8hYfk02LbM1IZ3f3RNp+S3zL NwV/Az2sb8BOlzdGDqDdVASQcyug1SkLpPwpaYG4bDV6ZhaQjzEw8z3FmZ0D4UCFZP/64UGKKS60r c6vgzBDjyPEmyduAL51jB8pW6+aWblRS/m0rkKkUwhEoJ834EhS+mpj0xb9UF3Nu84gY=; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 17:58:03 +0200 From: Anthony PERARD To: Penny Zheng Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ray.huang@amd.com, Anthony PERARD , Andrew Cooper , Michal Orzel , Jan Beulich , Julien Grall , Roger Pau =?iso-8859-1?Q?Monn=E9?= , Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 13/13] xen/cpufreq: Adapt SET/GET_CPUFREQ_CPPC xen_sysctl_pm_op for amd-cppc driver Message-ID: References: <20250822105218.3601273-1-Penny.Zheng@amd.com> <20250822105218.3601273-14-Penny.Zheng@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250822105218.3601273-14-Penny.Zheng@amd.com> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 06:52:18PM +0800, Penny Zheng wrote: > diff --git a/tools/misc/xenpm.c b/tools/misc/xenpm.c > index 02981c4583..eedb745a46 100644 > --- a/tools/misc/xenpm.c > +++ b/tools/misc/xenpm.c > @@ -38,6 +38,13 @@ > static xc_interface *xc_handle; > static unsigned int max_cpu_nr; > > +static const char cpufreq_policy_str[][12] = { Is it necessary to hard-code an hand calculated size of the literal strings? Can't we let the compiler do that for us? With this as type: static const char *cpufreq_policy_str[] = { The compiler might not detect an issue if we write "11" instead of "12", for example. > + [CPUFREQ_POLICY_UNKNOWN] = "unknown", > + [CPUFREQ_POLICY_POWERSAVE] = "powersave", > + [CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE] = "performance", > + [CPUFREQ_POLICY_ONDEMAND] = "ondemand", > +}; > + > /* help message */ > void show_help(void) > { Otherwise the tool side of the patch looks fine to me, so: Acked-by: Anthony PERARD Thanks, -- Anthony PERARD