From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754071Ab3KQObx (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:31:53 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:62990 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752639Ab3KQObt (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:31:49 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: viresh kumar Cc: Lan Tianyu , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Cpufreq: Make governor data on nonboot cpus across system suspend/resume Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: <3555392.CLJaBWE9DL@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.12.0-rc6+; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <5288425A.6000501@linaro.org> References: <9847309.KdKOG5y1Zx@vostro.rjw.lan> <1384616184-6197-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <5288425A.6000501@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday, November 17, 2013 09:43:14 AM viresh kumar wrote: > On 16 November 2013 21:06, Lan Tianyu wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -1818,9 +1818,13 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); > > } > > > > - if (((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) && ret) || > > - ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) && !ret)) > > + if ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) && ret) { > > + module_put(policy->governor->owner); > > + if (ret == -EALREADY) > > + return 0; > > + } else if ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) && !ret) { > > module_put(policy->governor->owner); > > + } > > This can still be written more efficiently I believe: > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 138ebe9..54e28e1 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1866,10 +1866,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > ret = policy->governor->governor(policy, event); > > if (!ret) { > - if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) > + if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) { > policy->governor->initialized++; > - else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) > + } else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) { > policy->governor->initialized--; > + module_put(policy->governor->owner); > + } > } else { > /* Restore original values */ > mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); > @@ -1877,13 +1879,14 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > policy->governor_enabled = true; > else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START) > policy->governor_enabled = false; > + else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) > + if (ret == -EALREADY) { You can write this as else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT && ret == -EALREADY) { > + module_put(policy->governor->owner); > + ret = 0; > + } > mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock); > } > > - if (((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) && ret) || > - ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) && !ret)) > - module_put(policy->governor->owner); > - > return ret; Apart from the above I agree. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.