On 24 June 2013 19:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> Looks OK, but since transition_ongoing is either 0 or 1 now, as far as I can
> say, it would be better to make it a bool and use = true/false instead of
> ++/-- I suppose.

Another fixup:

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 6ca7eac..49d942a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_notifier_list);
 static struct srcu_notifier_head cpufreq_transition_notifier_list;

 /* Tracks status of transition */
-static int transition_ongoing;
+static bool transition_ongoing;

 static bool init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list_called;
 static int __init init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(void)
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ void __cpufreq_notify_transition(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy,
                                "In middle of another frequency transition\n"))
                        return;

-               transition_ongoing++;
+               transition_ongoing = true;

                /* detect if the driver reported a value as "old frequency"
                 * which is not equal to what the cpufreq core thinks is
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ void __cpufreq_notify_transition(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy,
                                "No frequency transition in progress\n"))
                        return;

-               transition_ongoing--;
+               transition_ongoing = false;

                adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
                pr_debug("FREQ: %lu - CPU: %lu", (unsigned long)freqs->new,