From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Replace recover_policy with new_policy in cpufreq_online()
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:08:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150729053846.GD21493@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2952411.gjDWaFdOqs@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 29-07-15, 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> The recover_policy is unsed in cpufreq_online() to indicate whether
> a new policy object is created or an existing one is reinitialized.
>
> The "recover" part of the name is slightly confusing (it should be
> "reinitialization" rather than "recovery") and the logical not (!)
> operator is applied to it in almost all of the checks it is used in,
> so replace that variable with a new one called "new_policy" that
> will be true in the case of a new policy creation.
>
> While at it, drop one of the labels that is jumped to from only
> one spot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> One extra cleanup on top of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6888751/
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-29 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-23 0:00 [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Better separation of device addition/removal and online/offline paths Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 0:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Rename two functions related to CPU offline Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 6:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-23 0:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Separate CPU device removal from CPU online Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-23 6:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-23 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-24 2:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-24 19:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:01 ` [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Better separation of device addition/removal and online/offline paths Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:03 ` [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: Rework two functions related to CPU offline Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:42 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:03 ` [PATCH 2/7] cpufreq: Drop cpufreq_policy_restore() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:04 ` [PATCH 3/7] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary label from cpufreq_add_dev() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:05 ` [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: Drop unused dev argument from two functions Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:06 ` [PATCH 5/7] cpufreq: Do not update related_cpus on every policy activation Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:07 ` [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: Pass CPU number to cpufreq_policy_alloc() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 14:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 14:09 ` [PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device removal from CPU online Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 15:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 21:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-28 2:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-28 14:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 21:55 ` [Update][PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device registration " Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-28 2:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-28 14:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 1:03 ` [Update 2x][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 1:08 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: Replace recover_policy with new_policy in cpufreq_online() Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 5:38 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-07-29 5:32 ` [Update 2x][PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Separate CPU device registration from CPU online Viresh Kumar
2015-07-29 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-29 14:07 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150729053846.GD21493@linux \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.