lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free
On 01-12-21, 14:39, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> >> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
> >> so fix it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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 e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>
> >> if (policy->max_freq_req) {
> >> /*
> >> - * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> >> + * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> >
> > No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> > sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.
>
> I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
> CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.

I am fine with elaborating the comment, sure. Please send another patch for
that.

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-01 07:49    [W:0.142 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site