From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store() Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:50:38 +0530 Message-ID: <20160212162038.GB32705@vireshk-i7> References: <2946666.LCVBdOefy1@vostro.rjw.lan> <16931364.qnKxgPucoY@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160212155829.GA32705@vireshk-i7> <15659367.8so4AOBv9e@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:33016 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbcBLQUm (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:20:42 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q63so49693600pfb.0 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:20:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15659367.8so4AOBv9e@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 On 12-02-16, 17:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > > > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > > > > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. > > > > What about dropping the check completely ? > > Fine by me. > > --- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary checks from show() and store() > > The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to > check if the struct freq_attr they want to use really provides the > callbacks they need as expected (if that's not the case, it means > a bug in the code anyway), so change them to avoid doing that. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 21 +++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) Acked-by: Viresh Kumar -- viresh