From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754475AbdDKKop (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 06:44:45 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58466 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752753AbdDKKne (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 06:43:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:43:37 +0100 From: Juri Lelli To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] drivers: remove useless comment from base/arch_topology.c Message-ID: <20170411104337.GP30804@e106622-lin> References: <20170327131825.32134-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170327131825.32134-7-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170410135103.GR17774@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <20170410140214.GE30804@e106622-lin> <20170410163325.GU17774@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170410163325.GU17774@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/04/17 17:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:02:14PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 10/04/17 14:51, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:18:22PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > > Printing out an error message when we failed to get the cpu device is > > > > not helping anyone. Remove it. > > > > > > (1) the subject line talks about removing a "comment" but you're > > > actually removing an error printk > > > (2) I don't think it's "not helping anyone", although the description > > > above doesn't say _why_ - it's reporting the lack of a missing CPU > > > device that we expect to be present. If it's not present, then > > > we're not going to end up with the cpu capacity attribute, and the > > > error message answers the "why is that sysfs file missing" question. > > > > That's the same I was thinking when I put the error message there in the > > first place. But, then Greg didn't seem to like it. > > I don't think it was a case of "not liking it" - Greg asked what use it > was. Greg also pointed out the race with userspace. > Right. I asked him for more information, since I wasn't able to understand where the problem is. > I think dropping this patch is the quickest way to move forward. > OK, I'm also up for dropping it. Best, - Juri