On Sunday, May 12, 2013 08:46:34 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > I don't see how the virtual address of the tuners pointer would be of
> > any help to anyone so remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > index b0ffef96bf77..4b9bb5def6f1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > @@ -547,7 +547,6 @@ static int od_init(struct dbs_data *dbs_data)
> > tuners->io_is_busy = should_io_be_busy();
> >
> > dbs_data->tuners = tuners;
> > - pr_info("%s: tuners %p\n", __func__, tuners);
> > mutex_init(&dbs_data->mutex);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Sorry for this message :(
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Applied to the linux-next branch.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
