linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi: Remove some redundant code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1630840.jvZHOqyeXS@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Mon, 20 Aug 2018 11:10:57 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Ding Xiang <dingxiang@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc:     viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi: Remove some redundant code

On Monday, August 20, 2018 12:15:11 PM CEST Ding Xiang wrote:
> For single statement blocks,braces are not necessary.
> And "else" is not useful after return. So,remove these code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ding Xiang <dingxiang@...s.chinamobile.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 10 ++++------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index b61f4ec..0751a0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -423,9 +423,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  	unsigned int next_perf_state = 0; /* Index into perf table */
>  	int result = 0;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(!data)) {
> +	if (unlikely(!data))
>  		return -ENODEV;
> -	}
>  
>  	perf = to_perf_data(data);
>  	next_perf_state = policy->freq_table[index].driver_data;
> @@ -521,11 +520,10 @@ static unsigned int acpi_cpufreq_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  		}
>  		perf->state = perf->state_count-1;
>  		return freqn;
> -	} else {
> -		/* assume CPU is at P0... */
> -		perf->state = 0;
> -		return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
>  	}
> +	/* assume CPU is at P0... */
> +	perf->state = 0;
> +	return perf->states[0].core_frequency * 1000;
>  }
>  
>  static void free_acpi_perf_data(void)
> 

So what exactly is the value of this patch?