Hi Viresh,

On Monday 31 Aug 2020 at 16:43:08 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 28-08-20, 18:32, Ionela Voinescu wrote:

quoted

The current frequency passed to arch_set_freq_scale() could end up
being 0, signaling an error in setting a new frequency. Also, if the
maximum frequency in 0, this will result in a division by 0 error.

Therefore, validate these input values before using them for the
setting of the frequency scale factor.

Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <redacted>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <redacted>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <redacted>
---
 drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 75f72d684294..5708eb724790 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c

@@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq,
 	unsigned long scale;
 	int i;
 
+	if (unlikely(!cur_freq || !max_freq)) {
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+		return;
+	}

This can be written as:

        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cur_freq || !max_freq))
                return;

Yes, that's better.

I've pushed v5 with this and your Acked-by.

Thanks for all your reviews,
Ionela.

With that.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

quoted

+
 	/*
 	 * If the use of counters for FIE is enabled, just return as we don't
 	 * want to update the scale factor with information from CPUFREQ.
-- 
2.17.1

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel