Re: [PATCH 09/21] cpuidle: merge two if() statements for checkingerror cases

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Both return same error message and so better write them in a single line.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

modulo the comment on patch 08/21:

Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> index aec9029..b8c63cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> @@ -119,10 +119,7 @@ int cpuidle_idle_call(void)
>  	struct cpuidle_driver *drv;
>  	int next_state, entered_state;
>  
> -	if (cpuidle_disabled())
> -		return -ENODEV;
> -
> -	if (!initialized)
> +	if (cpuidle_disabled() || !initialized)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  
>  	/* check if the device is ready */
> 


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/