Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:39:23 +0530 | From | Gautham R Shenoy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list |
| |
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > { > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > Which branch is this patch based on?
My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your cleanup patches.
> > Thanks, > > - Juri
-- Thanks and Regards gautham.
| |