On Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:34:30 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START > (which is gonna be removed soon).
That should be "acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() can live without using CPUFREQ_START ..., because X". X is obviously missing. > Simplify it a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > --- > Rebased over: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=148359167516831&w=2 > > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > index f0b4a981b8d3..1ceea1143a1c 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > @@ -75,14 +75,12 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct > notifier_block *nb, > struct acpi_processor *pr; > unsigned int ppc = 0; > > - if (event == CPUFREQ_START && ignore_ppc <= 0) { > - ignore_ppc = 0; > - return 0; > - } > - > if (ignore_ppc) > return 0; > > + if (ignore_ppc < 0) > + ignore_ppc = 0; > + And the above looks like dead code to me (we have returned already if ignore_ppc is negative), so in particular ignore_ppc is never going to become 0 when it was negative initially. > if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST) > return 0; > > Thanks, Rafael
