On 09-06-15, 17:20, Saravana Kannan wrote:
[ Something similar attempted by Saravana earlier ]
Full name and email would be nice.
Sure. @Rafael can you please hand edit this in case I am not required to resend the patch ?
[ Something similar attempted by Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org earlier ]
+static void update_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu) {
- int ret;
- if (WARN_ON(cpu == policy->cpu))
Can you remind me again why this is a warning? Would we still need this check?
Its removed in a later commit. Its a warning because we are updating policy->cpu here and that must have been done only if policy->cpu != cpu.
- bool recover_policy = !sif;
The policy is always going to be there, so calling it "recover_policy" is kinda confusing. But I can't suggest a better name now.
Not always. Its created as well sometimes :)
pr_debug("adding CPU %u\n", cpu);
- /*
* Only possible if 'cpu' wasn't physically present earlier and we are* here from subsys_interface add callback. A hotplug notifier will* follow and we will handle it like logical CPU hotplug then. For now,* just create the sysfs link.*/- if (cpu_is_offline(cpu)) {
My changes were on an older code base, so things might have changed by now. But at this location, there was definitely a case where I had to check for "sif" before creating symlinks. I need to think a
cpu will be offline here only for sif==true.
bit more to remember what that reason was and see if you have to do it too.
I'll try to respond more later. But I just wanted to send out what I could when I have little time to review this.
Okay. Good to see you again.