Re: [PATCH 3/8] cpufreq: Add helper to perform alloc/free of policy structure

["Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 07/12/2013 12:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12 July 2013 03:46, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Separate out the allocation of the cpufreq policy structure (along with
>> its error handling) to a helper function. This makes the code easier to
>> read and also helps with some upcoming code reorganization.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index f8c3100..ca14dc2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -943,6 +943,37 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int sibling,
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>
>> +static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> +
>> +       policy = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cpufreq_policy), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> sizeof(*policy) ??

Ah, thanks for pointing that. That must be a remnant from the old code.
But, to make it easier for people testing this patchset to fix their
cpufreq regressions, I'll hold off on posting newer versions of this patchset,
to avoid confusion. We can revisit this at a later point in time, IMHO.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat