Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751685AbaBZDiq (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:38:46 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:42617 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbaBZDin (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:38:43 -0500 From: Saravana Kannan To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Saravana Kannan" Subject: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: stats: Remove redundant cpufreq_cpu_get() call Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:38:33 -0800 Message-Id: <1393385915-19138-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.2.1 In-Reply-To: <1789244.B5CzWbcp6h@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1789244.B5CzWbcp6h@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org __cpufreq_stats_create_table always gets pass the valid and real policy struct. So, there's no need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the policy again. Change-Id: I0136b3e67018ee3af2335906407f55d8c6219f71 Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan --- Viresh/Rafael, These 3 patches is the approximate code I have in mind. Approximate because: * I inserted one question as a comment into the code. * If the patch doesn't have any bugs, the plan is to remove cpufreq_generic_get() and references to it. This takes care of the "don't advertise before it's ready for use" rule. Viresh, I think the locking updates needs to be done in addition to this. Regards, Saravana drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 +----------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c index 5793e14..e4bd27f 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c @@ -185,7 +185,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, { unsigned int i, j, count = 0, ret = 0; struct cpufreq_stats *stat; - struct cpufreq_policy *current_policy; unsigned int alloc_size; unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; if (per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu)) @@ -194,13 +193,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if ((stat) == NULL) return -ENOMEM; - current_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); - if (current_policy == NULL) { - ret = -EINVAL; - goto error_get_fail; - } - - ret = sysfs_create_group(¤t_policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); + ret = sysfs_create_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); if (ret) goto error_out; @@ -243,11 +236,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, stat->last_time = get_jiffies_64(); stat->last_index = freq_table_get_index(stat, policy->cur); spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock); - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); return 0; error_out: - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); -error_get_fail: kfree(stat); per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu) = NULL; return ret; -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/