From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Replace recover_policy with new_policy in cpufreq_online() Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:08:46 +0530 Message-ID: <20150729053846.GD21493@linux> References: <7868353.pEStq1MJ2a@vostro.rjw.lan> <1702607.RH80fBCN6J@vostro.rjw.lan> <3091538.g8dYBumqSx@vostro.rjw.lan> <2952411.gjDWaFdOqs@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:36725 "EHLO mail-pd0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751387AbbG2Fiy (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 01:38:54 -0400 Received: by pdjr16 with SMTP id r16so84594261pdj.3 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2952411.gjDWaFdOqs@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Russell King - ARM Linux On 29-07-15, 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > 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 > --- > > 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