[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5a895a87-4eee-3dfd-5b86-af436929a068@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 14:39:18 +0800
From: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@...wei.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free
On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
>> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
>> so fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>
>> if (policy->max_freq_req) {
>> /*
>> - * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
>> + * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
>
> No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.
I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.
>
>> * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
>> */
>> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>
Tang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists