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.ku...@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <e...@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?
Thanks,
- Juri
> > do {
> > - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > -
> > /* No more policies in the list */
> > - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list)
> > + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list))
> > return NULL;
> > +
> > + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list);
> > } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active));
> >
> > return policy;
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
>
> --
> viresh
>
