On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 07:06:33 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We call cpufreq_cpu_get() in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() to increase usage
> refcount of policy and not to get policy for a cpu. So, we don't really need to
> capture the return value of this routine and call put for it later for failure
> cases. We can simply use policy passed as an argument to this routine.
>
> Moreover debug print is rewritten to make it more clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Both [1-2/2] look good, but what do they apply to? Mainline, linux-next,
my bleeding-edge branch?
Rafael
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 170d344..35e1a03 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -813,19 +813,18 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(unsigned int cpu,
> int ret = 0;
>
> for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
> - struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
> struct device *cpu_dev;
>
> if (j == cpu)
> continue;
>
> - pr_debug("CPU %u already managed, adding link\n", j);
> - managed_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> + pr_debug("Adding link for CPU: %u\n", j);
> + cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(j);
> ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> "cpufreq");
> if (ret) {
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(managed_policy);
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> return ret;
> }
> }
>
--
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
