From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752077AbeC0Dnz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:43:55 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]:33454 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751489AbeC0Dnx (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:43:53 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtByIibsxcDBbBDMxnqGTpptmAeMfzXcoj8SqokVEGE+aOmkVvrbVVH3h9WHCeqoXX02p6LDg==
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:43:44 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, edubezval@gmail.com,
        kevin.wangtao@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        amit.kachhap@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        javi.merino@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        daniel.thompson@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu
 idle cooling driver
Message-ID: <20180327034344.GC21693@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <1519226968-19821-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <1519226968-19821-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <20180223073432.GF26947@vireshk-i7>
 <faaf027c-e01c-6801-9a0c-ab7e0ba669a1@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <faaf027c-e01c-6801-9a0c-ab7e0ba669a1@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 23/02/2018 08:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-02-18, 16:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

> [ ... ]
> 
> >> +static s64 cpuidle_cooling_runtime(struct cpuidle_cooling_device *idle_cdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	s64 next_wakeup;
> >> +	int state = idle_cdev->state;
> >> +
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * The function must never be called when there is no
> >> +	 * mitigation because:
> >> +	 * - that does not make sense
> >> +	 * - we end up with a division by zero
> >> +	 */
> >> +	BUG_ON(!state);
> > 
> > As there is no locking in place, we can surely hit this case. What if
> > the state changed to 0 right before this routine was called ?
> > 
> > I would suggest we should just return 0 in that case and get away with
> > the BUG_ON().

Here if 'state' equals to 0 and we return 0, then the return value will
be same with when 'state' = 100; this lets the return value confused.

I think for 'state' = 0, should we return -1 so indicate the hrtimer
will not be set for this case?

Thanks,
Leo Yan