[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070924232423.GJ8127@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:24:23 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: roel <12o3l@...cali.nl>
Cc: travis@....com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Convert cpuinfo_x86 array to a per_cpu array
v3
<excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text
to add a single line reply>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, roel wrote:
> > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
> > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernow_k6
> > */
> > static int __init powernow_k6_init(void)
> > {
> > - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data;
> > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(0);
> >
> > if ((c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD) || (c->x86 != 5) ||
> > ((c->x86_model != 12) && (c->x86_model != 13)))
>
> while we're at it, we could change this to
>
> if (!(c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && c->x86 == 5 &&
> (c->x86_model == 12 || c->x86_model == 13)))
For what purpose? There's nothing wrong with the code as it stands,
and inverting the tests means we'd have to move a bunch of
code inside the if arm instead of just returning -ENODEV.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists