On 07/10/2014 04:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10 July 2014 16:45, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Looks good to me. But I think it would be better to move the invocation of >> kobject_move() to update_policy_cpu() itself, so that update_policy_cpu() >> will do all the work involved in updating the policy->cpu, as its name suggests. > > Its called from remove path as well .. > I know.. That's why it makes even more sense to consolidate all the work into one function. We can restructure cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu() such that the kobject_move() can be moved to update_policy_cpu(). Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html