On 02-08-19, 11:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 5:48:19 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 01-08-19, 10:57, Doug Smythies wrote:
Disagree. All I did was use a flag where it used to be set to UNIT_MAX, to basically implement the same thing.
And the earlier code wasn't fully correct as well, that's why we tried to fix it earlier.
Your argument seems to be "There was an earlier problem related to this, which was fixed, so it is fragile and I'd rather avoid it". Still, you are claiming that the code was in fact incorrect and you are not giving convincing arguments to support that.
So introducing the UINT_MAX thing again would be wrong, even if it fixes the problem for you.
Would it be wrong, because it would reintroduce the fragile code, or would it be wrong, because it would re-introduce a bug? What bug if so?
There will be two issues here if that patch is reintroduced:
- It will cause the BUG to reappear, which was fixed by the earlier commit. The commit log of ecd28842912 explains the bug in detail.
- And overriding next_freq as a flag will make the code fragile and we may have similar bugs coming up.
But yeah, lets continue discussion on the intel-pstate patch now.