On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> 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.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?
>
> 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.
>
No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :)
Best,
- Juri
