> On 04/14/2014 06:36 PM, ΗΤΈνΑΦ 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.

Cheers,
MyungJoo.

> 
> -Saravana
> 
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 
> 
> 
>        
>   
>          
>