Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:17:59 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Tang Yizhou <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
Cc:     rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, rafael@kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Fix a comment in cpufreq_policy_free
Message-ID: <20211201064759.2ak656yyr7wgxtj7@vireshk-i7>
References: <20211130151526.949-1-tangyizhou@huawei.com>
 <20211130151526.949-2-tangyizhou@huawei.com>
 <20211201042245.amxgyevar6gjbkfb@vireshk-i7>
 <5a895a87-4eee-3dfd-5b86-af436929a068@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a895a87-4eee-3dfd-5b86-af436929a068@huawei.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

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 <tangyizhou@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  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