We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail as the policy is active. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Acked-by: Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org --- Resending as a separate patch.
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 58aabe0f2d2c..4fa2215cc6ec 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -843,18 +843,11 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
- /* Updating inactive policies is invalid, so avoid doing that. */ - if (unlikely(policy_is_inactive(policy))) { - ret = -EBUSY; - goto unlock_policy_rwsem; - } - if (fattr->store) ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count); else ret = -EIO;
-unlock_policy_rwsem: up_write(&policy->rwsem); unlock: put_online_cpus();
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail as the policy is active. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Acked-by: Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org
Applied, thanks!
Rafael
On 10/14/2015 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:57:13 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail as the policy is active. Drop it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Acked-by: Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org
Applied, thanks!
Rafael
I didn't give a clear ack/review for the series. So, to clarify my ack/review
For all patches except 4/5, I'm okay with either/all of this: Reviewed-by: Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org Acked-by: Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org
For 4/5, I would still like us to move the sysfs creating after init. That part shouldn't be too hard. We don't need to create the sysfs file before init.
Once that's done, I wouldn't mind giving an Ack.
Thanks, Saravana
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org