From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751840AbcBLP6f (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:58:35 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:33671 "EHLO mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751417AbcBLP6e (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:58:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:28:29 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store() Message-ID: <20160212155829.GA32705@vireshk-i7> References: <2946666.LCVBdOefy1@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160212063115.GE16949@vireshk-i7> <16931364.qnKxgPucoY@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16931364.qnKxgPucoY@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12-02-16, 14:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, having a check that never fails is certainly unuseful. > > > So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead. > > I can add WARN_ON()s just fine. What about dropping the check completely ? -- viresh