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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 21 +++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> -- viresh
