Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask

On 10/11/2015 10:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org

The commit text should explain the why you are doing this.

---

drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 25c4c15103a0..b32521432db4 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)

if (new_policy) { /* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */

• cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
  

• cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
  

Again, why? It actually seems wrong. A 4 core cluster could come up with just 2 cores when the policy is added. But the related CPUs would be 4 CPUs.

/* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);

}

-Saravana