On 10/11/2015 10:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
We just made sure policy->cpu is online and this check will always fail as the policy is active. Drop it.Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 58aabe0f2d2c..4fa2215cc6ec 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -843,18 +843,11 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, down_write(&policy->rwsem); - /* Updating inactive policies is invalid, so avoid doing that. */ - if (unlikely(policy_is_inactive(policy))) { - ret = -EBUSY; - goto unlock_policy_rwsem; - } - if (fattr->store) ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count); else ret = -EIO; -unlock_policy_rwsem: up_write(&policy->rwsem); unlock: put_online_cpus();
Doesn't really seem related to the sysfs reorg/clean up. Should it be a separate patch outside of this series?
Acked-by: Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> -Saravana -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- 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/
