On Thursday, September 12, 2013 02:51:58 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12 September 2013 12:46, Srivatsa S. Bhat > <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That sounds good! Even the naming is much better, it conveys the intent > > clearly. > > Folded below change in my patch (attached): Please resend. And I honestly don't think that [1-3/5] are fixes and [4/5] is not needed any more. > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index b556d46..23f5845 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1111,7 +1111,7 @@ static int > cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > int ret; > > /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */ > - cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(policy->cpus)); > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu)); > > /* Don't touch sysfs files during light-weight tear-down */ > if (frozen) > > -- -- 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
