On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Jonghwan,
>
> On 05.07.2014 01:37, Jonghwan Choi wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> Cpumasks should be cleared before using.
>>>
>>> Please explain why and what is issue observed without this.
>>>
>>
>> -> When I checked the mask value, I knew that unwanted bit is set.
>>
>> Test code without cpumask_clear.
>>
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(0, &mask_val);
>> + cpulist_scnprintf(buf, 64, &mask_val);
>> + printk("--ID [ %d] = %s \n", id, buf);
>> + th_zone->cool_dev[id] = cpufreq_cooling_register(&mask_val);
>>
>>
>> Console message-> 4.861157] [c6] --ID [ 1] = 0,4-5,7 (4,5,7 cpu bit was set.)
>>
>> And when I tried to register two cooling devices with cpumask_set_cpu(0, &mask_val) and cpumask_set_cpu(4, &mask_val).
>>
>> I found that cpu 0 bit is also set in latter cpumask. (I hope latter cpumask has a cpu 4 bit.)
>>
>> So I think that cpumask_clear should be inserted.
>
> I believe Sachin's concern was related to your patch description. A good
> description should say what the patch changes and what is the rationale
> behind this change. Also for fixes it is a good practice to specify
> observed issues in patch description as well.
Yes, that is correct. Sorry if it wasn't clear in my previous mail.
--
Regards,
Sachin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
