[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211201064759.2ak656yyr7wgxtj7@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:17:59 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@...wei.com>
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 01-12-21, 14:39, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> 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.
I am fine with elaborating the comment, sure. Please send another patch for
that.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists