[PATCH] bus: arm-ccn: Fix cpu notifier priority

[jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber)]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 08:40:45AM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 13:14 +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > Fix cpu priority of notifier block that was erroneously set to
> > return value of next statement.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Glauber <jglauber@cavium.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c b/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > index 7082c72..d4a939e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > @@ -1271,7 +1271,7 @@ static int arm_ccn_pmu_init(struct arm_ccn
> > *ccn)
> >  	 * picked to have a chance to migrate events before perf is
> > notified.
> >  	 */
> >  	ccn->dt.cpu_nb.notifier_call = arm_ccn_pmu_cpu_notifier;
> > -	ccn->dt.cpu_nb.priority = CPU_PRI_PERF + 1,
> > +	ccn->dt.cpu_nb.priority = CPU_PRI_PERF + 1;
> >  	err = register_cpu_notifier(&ccn->dt.cpu_nb);
> >  	if (err)
> >  		goto error_cpu_notifier;
> 
> Damn, of course! I have never made (or heard about) such a typo before 
> - I wish the compiler warned about it :-(

Hi Pawel,

actually my patch description is wrong. The compiler evaluates both
statements but does _not_ overwrite the value of the first statement
(would require parenthesis to do so). So it is just a cosmetical
change, feel free to drop it.

Sorry for the noise,
Jan

> By all means:
> 
> Acked-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.2+
> 
> Arnd, would you be still able to pick it up in this cycle?
> 
> Thanks Both!
> 
> Pawe?