On Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:34:30 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START (which is gonna be removed soon).
That should be "acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START ..., because X".
X is obviously missing.
Simplify it a bit.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, struct acpi_processor *pr; unsigned int ppc = 0;
- if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) {
ignore_ppc = 0;return 0;- }
- if (ignore_ppc) return 0;
- if (ignore_ppc < 0)
ignore_ppc = 0;
And the above looks like dead code to me (we have returned already if ignore_ppc is negative), so in particular ignore_ppc is never going to become 0 when it was negative initially.
if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) return 0;
Thanks, Rafael