On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 06:29:46PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:44:13 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>
> > @@ -5056,10 +5018,28 @@ static int sched_cpu_inactive(struct not
> > switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
> > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> > set_cpu_active((long)hcpu, false);
> > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > - default:
> > - return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > + break;
> > }
> > +
> > + switch (action) {
> > + case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: /* explicitly allow suspend */
>
> Instead of the double switch (which is quite confusing), what about
> just adding:
>
> if (!(action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN))
>
> I mean, the above switch gets called for both cases, this only gets
> called for the one case. This case is a subset of the above. I don't
> see why an if () would not be better than a double (confusing) switch().
I don't see the confusion in the double switch(), but sure an if would
work too I suppose.
> Also, it seems that this change also does not return NOTIFY_DONE if
> something other than CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is passed in.
Yeah, I had a look but couldn't find an actual difference between
NOTIFY_DONE and NOTIFY_OK. Maybe I missed it..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
