[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171007223636.24797-1-alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 22:36:46 +0000
From: "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: [PATCH review for 4.9 01/50] cpufreq: Do not clear real_cpus mask on
policy init
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
[ Upstream commit f451014692ae34e587b00de6745e16661cf734d8 ]
If new_policy is set in cpufreq_online(), the policy object has just
been created and its real_cpus mask has been zeroed on allocation,
and the driver's ->init() callback should not touch it.
It doesn't need to be cleared again, so don't do that.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 286d4d61bd0b..530f255a898b 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1172,8 +1172,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
if (new_policy) {
/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
- /* Clear mask of registered CPUs */
- cpumask_clear(policy->real_cpus);
}
/*
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists