lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()
On 12-02-16, 17:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 09:28:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful.
> > >
> > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead.
> > >
> > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine.
> >
> > What about dropping the check completely ?
>
> Fine by me.
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary checks from show() and store()
>
> The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to
> check if the struct freq_attr they want to use really provides the
> callbacks they need as expected (if that's not the case, it means
> a bug in the code anyway), so change them to avoid doing that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 21 +++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-12 17:41    [W:0.034 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site