[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1547465.PvRbYVlVrB@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:32:56 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: processor_perflib: Simplify code and stop using CPUFREQ_START
On Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:34:30 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START
> (which is gonna be removed soon).
That should be "acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START ...,
because X".
X is obviously missing.
> Simplify it a bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2
>
> drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++-----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
> @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> struct acpi_processor *pr;
> unsigned int ppc = 0;
>
> - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) {
> - ignore_ppc = 0;
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> if (ignore_ppc)
> return 0;
>
> + if (ignore_ppc < 0)
> + ignore_ppc = 0;
> +
And the above looks like dead code to me (we have returned already if ignore_ppc
is negative), so in particular ignore_ppc is never going to become 0 when it was
negative initially.
> if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST)
> return 0;
>
>
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists