Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use list_is_last() to check last entry of the policy list

[Gautham R Shenoy]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last
> > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last
> > > primitive instead.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > >  {
> > >  	lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock);
> 
> Which branch is this patch based on?

My bad! This is based on your branch  git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git
upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your
cleanup patches.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Juri

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.