On Monday, July 20, 2015 09:45:30 AM Pan Xinhui wrote:
> hi, Rafael
> thanks for your nice work :)
> On 2015年07月18日 09:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> >
> > acpi_processor_unregister_performance() actually doesn't use its
> > first argument, so drop it and update the callers accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 4 +---
> > drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 5 ++---
> > drivers/cpufreq/e_powersaver.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/cpufreq/ia64-acpi-cpufreq.c | 5 ++---
> > drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c | 5 ++---
> > drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c | 4 ++--
> > include/acpi/processor.h | 5 +----
> > 8 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
>
> I wish I can test this patch. However I only have x86 hardware, not all
> codes can be tested on my side.
Possible build errors should be sorted out by the 0-day testing and the
functional part will be OK if the name of the remaining argument is not
changed in any spot.
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/xen/xen-acpi-processor.c
> > @@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ err_unregister:
> > for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
> > perf = per_cpu_ptr(acpi_perf_data, i);
> > - acpi_processor_unregister_performance(perf, i);
> > + acpi_processor_unregister_performance(i);
> > }
> > err_out:
> > /* Freeing a NULL pointer is OK: alloc_percpu zeroes. */
> > @@ -582,7 +582,7 @@ static void __exit xen_acpi_processor_ex
> > for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
> > perf = per_cpu_ptr(acpi_perf_data, i);
> > - acpi_processor_unregister_performance(perf, i);
> > + acpi_processor_unregister_performance(i);
>
>
> > }
> > free_acpi_perf_data();
> > }
> >
>
> After a simple review, in functions above *perf* is not used anymore, can we
> just change the codes like below
> @@ -580,9 +580,7 @@ static void __exit xen_acpi_processor_exit(void)
> kfree(acpi_id_present);
> kfree(acpi_id_cst_present);
> for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> - struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
> - perf = per_cpu_ptr(acpi_perf_data, i);
> - acpi_processor_unregister_performance(perf, i);
> + acpi_processor_unregister_performance(i);
> }
> free_acpi_perf_data();
You're right, thanks!
I'll send an update shortly.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
