* [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies
@ 2015-10-13 5:27 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2015-10-13 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael Wysocki; +Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, skannan, Viresh Kumar, open list
We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
as the policy is active. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
---
Resending as a separate patch.
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 58aabe0f2d2c..4fa2215cc6ec 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -843,18 +843,11 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
- /* Updating inactive policies is invalid, so avoid doing that. */
- if (unlikely(policy_is_inactive(policy))) {
- ret = -EBUSY;
- goto unlock_policy_rwsem;
- }
-
if (fattr->store)
ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count);
else
ret = -EIO;
-unlock_policy_rwsem:
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
unlock:
put_online_cpus();
--
2.4.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies
@ 2015-10-13 5:27 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2015-10-13 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael Wysocki; +Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, skannan, Viresh Kumar, open list
We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
as the policy is active. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
---
Resending as a separate patch.
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 -------
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 58aabe0f2d2c..4fa2215cc6ec 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -843,18 +843,11 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
- /* Updating inactive policies is invalid, so avoid doing that. */
- if (unlikely(policy_is_inactive(policy))) {
- ret = -EBUSY;
- goto unlock_policy_rwsem;
- }
-
if (fattr->store)
ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count);
else
ret = -EIO;
-unlock_policy_rwsem:
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
unlock:
put_online_cpus();
--
2.4.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies
2015-10-13 5:27 ` Viresh Kumar
(?)
@ 2015-10-15 0:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-15 1:51 ` Saravana Kannan
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2015-10-15 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar; +Cc: linaro-kernel, linux-pm, skannan, open list
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
> as the policy is active. Drop it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Applied, thanks!
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies
2015-10-15 0:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2015-10-15 1:51 ` Saravana Kannan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Saravana Kannan @ 2015-10-15 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: Viresh Kumar, linaro-kernel, linux-pm, open list
On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
>> as the policy is active. Drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> Rafael
>
I didn't give a clear ack/review for the series. So, to clarify my
ack/review
For all patches except 4/5, I'm okay with either/all of this:
Reviewed-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
For 4/5, I would still like us to move the sysfs creating after init.
That part shouldn't be too hard. We don't need to create the sysfs file
before init.
Once that's done, I wouldn't mind giving an Ack.
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-15 1:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-10-13 5:27 [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 5:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-15 0:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-15 1:51 ` Saravana Kannan
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.