Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1245347 > unrolled thread

[PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-10-13 07:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-10-15 02:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> - 2015-10-15 04:00 +0200

#1245347 — [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Drop redundant check for inactive policies

We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
as the policy is active. Drop it.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
---
Resending as a separate patch.

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 58aabe0f2d2c..4fa2215cc6ec 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -843,18 +843,11 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
 
 	down_write(&policy->rwsem);
 
-	/* Updating inactive policies is invalid, so avoid doing that. */
-	if (unlikely(policy_is_inactive(policy))) {
-		ret = -EBUSY;
-		goto unlock_policy_rwsem;
-	}
-
 	if (fattr->store)
 		ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count);
 	else
 		ret = -EIO;
 
-unlock_policy_rwsem:
 	up_write(&policy->rwsem);
 unlock:
 	put_online_cpus();
-- 
2.4.0

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247265

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
> as the policy is active. Drop it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>

Applied, thanks!

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247312

On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail
>> as the policy is active. Drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> Rafael
>

I didn't give a clear ack/review for the series. So, to clarify my 
ack/review

For all patches except 4/5, I'm okay with either/all of this:
Reviewed-by:  Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>

For 4/5, I would still like us to move the sysfs creating after init. 
That part shouldn't be too hard. We don't need to create the sysfs file 
before init.

Once that's done, I wouldn't mind giving an Ack.

Thanks,
Saravana

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web