2021-11-30 14:48:35

by Tang Yizhou

Subject: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
so fix it.

Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)

if (policy->max_freq_req) {
/*
- * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
+ * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
* successfully adding max_freq_req request.
*/
blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
--
2.17.1

2021-12-01 04:22:53

by Viresh Kumar

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
> so fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>
> if (policy->max_freq_req) {
> /*
> - * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> + * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after

No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.

> * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
> */
> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
> --
> 2.17.1

--
viresh

2021-12-01 06:39:27

by Tang Yizhou

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
>> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
>> so fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>
>> if (policy->max_freq_req) {
>> /*
>> - * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
>> + * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
>
> No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.

I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.

>
>> * successfully adding max_freq_req request.
>> */
>> blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>

Tang

2021-12-01 06:48:14

by Viresh Kumar

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free

On 01-12-21, 14:39, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> On 2021/12/1 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-11-21, 23:15, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> >> The comment is inconsistent with the block_notifier_call_chain() call,
> >> so fix it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tang Yizhou <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> index e338d2f010fe..8f753675e4a2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_free(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>
> >> if (policy->max_freq_req) {
> >> /*
> >> - * CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> >> + * CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent only after
> >
> > No, the earlier comment is correct. It says when the CREATE notification was
> > sent and so we need to do the remove here before removing max_freq_req.
>
> I see. I was confused at the first time. Perhaps it is better to both comment when
> CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY notification is sent.

I am fine with elaborating the comment, sure. Please send another patch for
that.

--
viresh