From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:52:15 +0530 Message-ID: <20160125112215.GB9155@vireshk> References: <1453715167-26165-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160125095029.GE3183@vireshk> <20160125111824.GH10898@e106622-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:33107 "EHLO mail-pf0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932208AbcAYLWS (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:22:18 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e65so81065508pfe.0 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 03:22:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160125111824.GH10898@e106622-lin> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shilpasri G Bhat On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > { > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > Which branch is this patch based on? Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ? :) -- viresh