Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask

[Saravana Kannan]

On 10/11/2015 10:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

The commit text should explain the why you are doing this.

> ---
>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 25c4c15103a0..b32521432db4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>
>   	if (new_policy) {
>   		/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
> -		cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
> +		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);

Again, why? It actually seems wrong. A 4 core cluster could come up with 
just 2 cores when the policy is added. But the related CPUs would be 4 CPUs.

>   		/* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
>   		cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);
>   	}

-Saravana

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/