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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1417962 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

Started by"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
First post2016-06-09 01:50 +0200
Last post2016-06-10 05:00 +0200
Articles 4 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-06-09 01:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-09 05:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-06-09 14:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-06-10 05:00 +0200

#1417962 — [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Date2016-06-09 01:50 +0200
Subject[PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Drop gov_cancel_work()
Message-ID<rHVou-6Nf-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
gov_cancel_work().

Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the
caller.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |   19 +++++++------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -336,17 +336,6 @@ static inline void gov_clear_update_util
 	synchronize_sched();
 }
 
-static void gov_cancel_work(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
-{
-	struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data;
-
-	gov_clear_update_util(policy_dbs->policy);
-	irq_work_sync(&policy_dbs->irq_work);
-	cancel_work_sync(&policy_dbs->work);
-	atomic_set(&policy_dbs->work_count, 0);
-	policy_dbs->work_in_progress = false;
-}
-
 static struct policy_dbs_info *alloc_policy_dbs_info(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 						     struct dbs_governor *gov)
 {
@@ -544,7 +533,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_dbs_governor_s
 
 void cpufreq_dbs_governor_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 {
-	gov_cancel_work(policy);
+	struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data;
+
+	gov_clear_update_util(policy_dbs->policy);
+	irq_work_sync(&policy_dbs->irq_work);
+	cancel_work_sync(&policy_dbs->work);
+	atomic_set(&policy_dbs->work_count, 0);
+	policy_dbs->work_in_progress = false;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_dbs_governor_stop);

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418044

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2016-06-09 05:30 +0200
Message-ID<rHYPn-Ey-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1417962
On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
> gov_cancel_work().
> 
> Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the
> caller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |   19 +++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

I am wondering what happened to your other patches around the governor callbacks
and why weren't they applied yet :)

-- 
viresh

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

#1418279

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date2016-06-09 14:30 +0200
Message-ID<rI7fX-6hH-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1418044
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>
>> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
>> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
>> gov_cancel_work().
>>
>> Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the
>> caller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |   19 +++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Thanks!

> I am wondering what happened to your other patches around the governor callbacks
> and why weren't they applied yet :)

They are in linux-next now, aren't they?

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

#1419002

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2016-06-10 05:00 +0200
Message-ID<rIkPT-78W-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1418279
On 09-06-16, 14:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 09-06-16, 01:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>
> >> There's no reason for gov_cancel_work() to exist at all, as it only
> >> has one caller and the only thing done by that caller is to invoke
> >> gov_cancel_work().
> >>
> >> Accordingly, drop gov_cancel_work() and move its contents to the
> >> caller.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |   19 +++++++------------
> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > I am wondering what happened to your other patches around the governor callbacks
> > and why weren't they applied yet :)
> 
> They are in linux-next now, aren't they?

Yeah, they are in now.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web