On 22 May 2014 05:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The case in which we want to return 0. Never mind, it's OK.
Ahh yes, It was wrong earlier and fixed during this patch only :)
> The parens are still not necessary, though.
Already got rid of them and so didn't bother replying :)
--
To unsubscrib
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 09:33:42 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> + /* Duplicate OPPs ? */
> >> + if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
> >> + int ret = (new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt) && opp->available
> >> ?
> >> +
On 21 May 2014 02:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> + /* Duplicate OPPs ? */
>> + if (new_opp->rate == opp->rate) {
>> + int ret = (new_opp->u_volt == opp->u_volt) && opp->available ?
>> + 0 : -EEXIST;
>
> The parens are not necessary. And is the direction co
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 08:23:28 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> From: Chander Kashyap
>
> We don't have any protection against addition of duplicate OPPs currently and
> in case some code tries to add them it will end up corrupting OPP tables.
>
> There can be many combinations in which we may end up
On 05/20/2014 09:53 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> From: Chander Kashyap
>
> We don't have any protection against addition of duplicate OPPs currently and
> in case some code tries to add them it will end up corrupting OPP tables.
>
> There can be many combinations in which we may end up trying dupli
From: Chander Kashyap
We don't have any protection against addition of duplicate OPPs currently and
in case some code tries to add them it will end up corrupting OPP tables.
There can be many combinations in which we may end up trying duplicate OPPs:
- both freq and volt are same, but earlier OP
6 matches
Mail list logo
