On 14/05/2024 9:52 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.05.2024 02:24, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -459,21 +459,21 @@ static void print_PPC(unsigned int platform_limit)
>>>
>>> int set_px_pminfo(uint32_t acpi_id, struct xen_processor_performance *perf)
>>> {
>>> - int ret=0, cpuid;
>>> + int ret=0, cpu;
> Would be nice if the missing blanks were added here as well, while touching
> the line.
Will adjust.
>
>>> struct processor_pminfo *pmpt;
>>> struct processor_performance *pxpt;
>>>
>>> - cpuid = get_cpu_id(acpi_id);
>>> - if ( cpuid < 0 || !perf )
>>> + cpu = get_cpu_id(acpi_id);
>>> + if ( cpu < 0 || !perf )
>>> {
>>> ret = -EINVAL;
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>> if ( cpufreq_verbose )
>>> - printk("Set CPU acpi_id(%d) cpuid(%d) Px State info:\n",
>>> + printk("Set CPU acpi_id(%d) cpu(%d) Px State info:\n",
>>> acpi_id, cpuid);
>> This cpuid should be changed as well?
> And with that adjustment
Yes - this was a victim of a "trivial" post-test fix. I fixed it just
after sending out the email.
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Thanks.
~Andrew
