On 04/14/2014 11:30 PM, 함명주 wrote: >> On 04/14/2014 06:36 PM, 함명주 wrote: >>>> MyungJoo/Kyungmin, >>>> >>>> Bump. Can we accept this patch please? >>>> >>>> -Saravana >>> >>> Nack. >>> >>> Please note that freq_table is also an optional value, which may >>> be null. >> >> Ah, I saw that the max_freq would be zero if freq_table was NULL and I >> assumed that it can't be NULL. But I see that the max_freq limit is not >> applied if it's zero. Thanks for catching it. >> >>> Besides, please be aware that your code is under rcu_read_lock(). >> >> Valid point. I was just trying to keep the diff simple. No one's really >> going to be catting this file often when performance matters. >> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> MyungJoo. >>> >>> ps. I'll send a related patch (avoid accessing null but not-an-error >>> pointer at other sysfs nodes). Thank you for letting me catch such bugs anyway. >> >> I can go ahead and do this myself if you don't mind. > > No, we don't need it. It was a false alarm. > Reading again, I've found that we've already made other sysfs nodes > check if either freq_table is null or its size is 0. > > So, we only need to look at this available_frequencies node now. > > I'll add some notes on the ABI doc for available_frequencies soon. > Ah, I misunderstood your previous email. I thought you Nack-ed my patch and decided to send your own patch to replace mine. Ok, I'll fix up mine and send it out. -Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
