From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the
 policy list
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:39:23 +0530
Message-ID: <20160127060923.GB28238@in.ibm.com>
References: <1453715167-26165-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20160125095029.GE3183@vireshk>
 <20160125111824.GH10898@e106622-lin>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:54494 "EHLO
	e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753621AbcA0GJf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:09:35 -0500
Received: from localhost
	by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org> from <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:09:34 -0700
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 <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, 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 <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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?

My bad! This is based on your branch  git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
cleanup patches.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Juri

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.