Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1647671 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V4 03/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: Name cpufreq cooling devices as cpufreq_cdev

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V4 03/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: Name cpufreq cooling  devices as cpufreq_cdev Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> - 2017-05-23 08:40 +0200
    [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-05-23 09:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 04:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-05-24 06:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V4 03/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: Name cpufreq cooling  devices as cpufreq_cdev Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-05-23 09:10 +0200

#1647671 — Re: [PATCH V4 03/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: Name cpufreq cooling devices as cpufreq_cdev

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 15:57 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Objects of "struct cpufreq_cooling_device" are named a bit
> inconsistently. Lets use cpufreq_cdev everywhere. Also note that the
> lists containing such devices is renamed similarly too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 248 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> ----------
>  1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
> 
> 

>  
>  	num_cpus = cpumask_weight(clip_cpus);
> -	cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle = kcalloc(num_cpus,
> -					    sizeof(*cpufreq_dev-
> >time_in_idle),
> +	cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle = kcalloc(num_cpus,
> +					    sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
> >time_in_idle),
>  					    GFP_KERNEL);

checkpatch complains about this line

WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
#544: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:827:
+	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
>freq_table) *
+					  cpufreq_cdev->max_level,
GFP_KERNEL);

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 614 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-
inplace.

and also patch 8/17.

It's better to get this fixed.

thanks,
rui


> -	if (!cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle) {
> +	if (!cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle) {
>  		cool_dev = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  		goto free_cdev;
>  	}
>  
> -	cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle_timestamp =
> -		kcalloc(num_cpus, sizeof(*cpufreq_dev-
> >time_in_idle_timestamp),
> +	cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle_timestamp =
> +		kcalloc(num_cpus, sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
> >time_in_idle_timestamp),
>  			GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle_timestamp) {
> +	if (!cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle_timestamp) {
>  		cool_dev = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  		goto free_time_in_idle;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Find max levels */
>  	cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, table)
> -		cpufreq_dev->max_level++;
> +		cpufreq_cdev->max_level++;
>  
> -	cpufreq_dev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_dev-
> >freq_table) *
> -					  cpufreq_dev->max_level,
> GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!cpufreq_dev->freq_table) {
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
> >freq_table) *
> +					  cpufreq_cdev->max_level,
> GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) {
>  		cool_dev = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  		goto free_time_in_idle_timestamp;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* max_level is an index, not a counter */
> -	cpufreq_dev->max_level--;
> +	cpufreq_cdev->max_level--;
>  
> -	cpumask_copy(&cpufreq_dev->allowed_cpus, clip_cpus);
> +	cpumask_copy(&cpufreq_cdev->allowed_cpus, clip_cpus);
>  
>  	if (capacitance) {
> -		cpufreq_dev->plat_get_static_power =
> plat_static_func;
> +		cpufreq_cdev->plat_get_static_power =
> plat_static_func;
>  
> -		ret = build_dyn_power_table(cpufreq_dev,
> capacitance);
> +		ret = build_dyn_power_table(cpufreq_cdev,
> capacitance);
>  		if (ret) {
>  			cool_dev = ERR_PTR(ret);
>  			goto free_table;
> @@ -856,12 +855,12 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node
> *np,
>  		cool_dev = ERR_PTR(ret);
>  		goto free_power_table;
>  	}
> -	cpufreq_dev->id = ret;
> +	cpufreq_cdev->id = ret;
>  
>  	/* Fill freq-table in descending order of frequencies */
> -	for (i = 0, freq = -1; i <= cpufreq_dev->max_level; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0, freq = -1; i <= cpufreq_cdev->max_level; i++) {
>  		freq = find_next_max(table, freq);
> -		cpufreq_dev->freq_table[i] = freq;
> +		cpufreq_cdev->freq_table[i] = freq;
>  
>  		/* Warn for duplicate entries */
>  		if (!freq)
> @@ -871,20 +870,21 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node
> *np,
>  	}
>  
>  	snprintf(dev_name, sizeof(dev_name), "thermal-cpufreq-%d",
> -		 cpufreq_dev->id);
> +		 cpufreq_cdev->id);
>  
> -	cool_dev = thermal_of_cooling_device_register(np, dev_name,
> cpufreq_dev,
> +	cool_dev = thermal_of_cooling_device_register(np, dev_name,
> +						      cpufreq_cdev,
>  						      cooling_ops);
>  	if (IS_ERR(cool_dev))
>  		goto remove_ida;
>  
> -	cpufreq_dev->clipped_freq = cpufreq_dev->freq_table[0];
> -	cpufreq_dev->cool_dev = cool_dev;
> +	cpufreq_cdev->clipped_freq = cpufreq_cdev->freq_table[0];
> +	cpufreq_cdev->cool_dev = cool_dev;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock);
>  	/* Register the notifier for first cpufreq cooling device */
> -	first = list_empty(&cpufreq_dev_list);
> -	list_add(&cpufreq_dev->node, &cpufreq_dev_list);
> +	first = list_empty(&cpufreq_cdev_list);
> +	list_add(&cpufreq_cdev->node, &cpufreq_cdev_list);
>  	mutex_unlock(&cooling_list_lock);
>  
>  	if (first)
> @@ -894,17 +894,17 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node
> *np,
>  	goto put_policy;
>  
>  remove_ida:
> -	ida_simple_remove(&cpufreq_ida, cpufreq_dev->id);
> +	ida_simple_remove(&cpufreq_ida, cpufreq_cdev->id);
>  free_power_table:
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->dyn_power_table);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->dyn_power_table);
>  free_table:
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->freq_table);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->freq_table);
>  free_time_in_idle_timestamp:
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle_timestamp);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle_timestamp);
>  free_time_in_idle:
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle);
>  free_cdev:
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev);
>  put_policy:
>  	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>  free_cpumask:
> @@ -1029,30 +1029,30 @@
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_cpufreq_power_cooling_register);
>   */
>  void cpufreq_cooling_unregister(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev)
>  {
> -	struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_dev;
> +	struct cpufreq_cooling_device *cpufreq_cdev;
>  	bool last;
>  
>  	if (!cdev)
>  		return;
>  
> -	cpufreq_dev = cdev->devdata;
> +	cpufreq_cdev = cdev->devdata;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock);
> -	list_del(&cpufreq_dev->node);
> +	list_del(&cpufreq_cdev->node);
>  	/* Unregister the notifier for the last cpufreq cooling
> device */
> -	last = list_empty(&cpufreq_dev_list);
> +	last = list_empty(&cpufreq_cdev_list);
>  	mutex_unlock(&cooling_list_lock);
>  
>  	if (last)
>  		cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&thermal_cpufreq_notifie
> r_block,
>  					    CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER)
> ;
>  
> -	thermal_cooling_device_unregister(cpufreq_dev->cool_dev);
> -	ida_simple_remove(&cpufreq_ida, cpufreq_dev->id);
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->dyn_power_table);
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle_timestamp);
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle);
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev->freq_table);
> -	kfree(cpufreq_dev);
> +	thermal_cooling_device_unregister(cpufreq_cdev->cool_dev);
> +	ida_simple_remove(&cpufreq_ida, cpufreq_cdev->id);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->dyn_power_table);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle_timestamp);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev->freq_table);
> +	kfree(cpufreq_cdev);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_cooling_unregister);

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1647695 — [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array

Checkpatch reports following:

WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
+	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,

Fix that.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
index 1305020790b2..908a8014cf76 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
@@ -724,8 +724,9 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
 	/* max_level is an index, not a counter */
 	cpufreq_cdev->max_level = i - 1;
 
-	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
-					  GFP_KERNEL);
+	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc_array(i,
+					sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table),
+					GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) {
 		cdev = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 		goto free_idle_time;
-- 
2.13.0.70.g6367777092d9

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1649064 — Re: [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array

Hello,

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:33:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Checkpatch reports following:
> 
> WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> 
> Fix that.

That is how the patch would apply. Enter to continue

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#159: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:783:
+	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,

WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
#159: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:783:
+	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
+					  GFP_KERNEL);

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#190: FILE: include/linux/cpufreq.h:859:
+static inline int cpufreq_table_count_valid_entries(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy)


> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> index 1305020790b2..908a8014cf76 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> @@ -724,8 +724,9 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
>  	/* max_level is an index, not a counter */
>  	cpufreq_cdev->max_level = i - 1;
>  
> -	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> -					  GFP_KERNEL);
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc_array(i,
> +					sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table),
> +					GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) {
>  		cdev = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  		goto free_idle_time;
> -- 
> 2.13.0.70.g6367777092d9
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1649081 — Re: [PATCH] thermal: cpu_cooling: Replace kmalloc with kmalloc_array

On 23-05-17, 19:27, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:33:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Checkpatch reports following:
> > 
> > WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
> > +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> > 
> > Fix that.
> 
> That is how the patch would apply. Enter to continue
> 
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #159: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:783:
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> 
> WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
> #159: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:783:
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> +					  GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #190: FILE: include/linux/cpufreq.h:859:
> +static inline int cpufreq_table_count_valid_entries(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy)

I am not sure what you meant here. Above doesn't looks something that
this patch can generate. This was fixing the problem that you reported
above.
 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > index 1305020790b2..908a8014cf76 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > @@ -724,8 +724,9 @@ __cpufreq_cooling_register(struct device_node *np,
> >  	/* max_level is an index, not a counter */
> >  	cpufreq_cdev->max_level = i - 1;
> >  
> > -	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) * i,
> > -					  GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc_array(i,
> > +					sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev->freq_table),
> > +					GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!cpufreq_cdev->freq_table) {

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1647702

On 23-05-17, 14:37, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 15:57 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Objects of "struct cpufreq_cooling_device" are named a bit
> > inconsistently. Lets use cpufreq_cdev everywhere. Also note that the
> > lists containing such devices is renamed similarly too.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 248 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > ----------
> >  1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> 
> >  
> >  	num_cpus = cpumask_weight(clip_cpus);
> > -	cpufreq_dev->time_in_idle = kcalloc(num_cpus,
> > -					    sizeof(*cpufreq_dev-
> > >time_in_idle),
> > +	cpufreq_cdev->time_in_idle = kcalloc(num_cpus,
> > +					    sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
> > >time_in_idle),
> >  					    GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> checkpatch complains about this line

Not about this line, but the one present below it.

> WARNING: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
> #544: FILE: drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:827:
> +	cpufreq_cdev->freq_table = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpufreq_cdev-
> >freq_table) *
> +					  cpufreq_cdev->max_level,
> GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 614 lines checked
> 
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
>       mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-
> inplace.
> 
> and also patch 8/17.
> 
> It's better to get this fixed.

Sure. As this was existing code and nothing new that I added, I have
sent a separate patch in reply to your email to get that fixed. You
can apply this series followed by that patch now.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web