On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> index a416de8..4e2f35a 100644
>> --- a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> +++ b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/cpufreq-set.c
>> @@ -320,12 +320,11 @@ int cmd_freq_set(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>> printf(_("Setting cpu: %d\n"), cpu);
>> ret = do_one_cpu(cpu, &new_pol, freq, policychange);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + print_error();
>> break;
>
> Just return directly instead of break return;
>
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> - if (ret)
>> - print_error();
>> -
>> return ret;
>
> Are you sure this patch is correct? Theoretically, it's possible to
> reach the end of this function without going hitting the
> "ret = do_one_cpu(...);" assignment.
>
> Don't be fooled by the "int ret = 0;" initialization, that is a trick
> initialization to mislead the unwary. By the end of the do while loop
> then "ret" is always -1.
I have missed that, thank you for pointing this out. This patch is
wrong and should not be applied, please ignore it.
Dan, should I just leave this file as it is?
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
--
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
