[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160125112215.GB9155@vireshk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:52:15 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the
policy list
On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > primitive instead.
> > >
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > {
> > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
>
> Which branch is this patch based on?
Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ?
:)
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists