From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by cpufreq_table_find_index_dl() Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:32:09 +0530 Message-ID: <20180221100209.GP28462@vireshk-i7> References: <1518430876-24464-1-git-send-email-shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180212102900.GU28462@vireshk-i7> <874lmasxxx.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20180221055450.GO28462@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shilpasri G Bhat , linuxppc-dev List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 21-02-18, 10:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > To be precise, ->init() should fail as that's where the table is > created. The registration fails as a result then. > > But what if the bug is that ->init() doesn't fail when it should? > > I guess the core could double check the frequency table after ->init() > if ->target_index is not NULL. > > The overall point here is that if you get a negative index in > ->fast_switch(), that's way too late anyway and we should be able to > catch that error much earlier. I don't want to end up doing double checking as some of it is already done at init, but let me check on what can be done. -- viresh