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

[Viresh Kumar]

On 12-10-15, 12:12, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >  	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.

Firstly, the patch hasn't changed anything at all. related_cpus was
empty until this point, and orring or setting it with ->cpus will
result in the same output.

Secondly, this is what we always wanted. related_cpus should contain
the mask of all possible CPUs for that cluster.

-- 
viresh
--
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/