[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 4/9] x86/intel_pstate: relocate the driver register function
>>> On 17.09.15 at 17:38, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14/09/15 03:32, Wei Wang wrote: >> Move the driver register function to >> the cpufreq.c. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >> xen/include/acpi/cpufreq/cpufreq.h | 27 +-------------------------- >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >> >> changes in v5: >> 1) keep cpufreq_presmp_init() intact. >> >> diff --git a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> index 567e9e9..0c437d4 100644 >> --- a/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> +++ b/xen/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> @@ -638,3 +638,18 @@ static int __init cpufreq_presmp_init(void) >> } >> presmp_initcall(cpufreq_presmp_init); >> >> +int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data) >> +{ >> + if ( !driver_data || !driver_data->init || >> + !driver_data->verify || !driver_data->exit || >> + (!driver_data->target == !driver_data->setpolicy) ) > > This line will incur the wrath of newer GCC's which have warnings > against such logic. Hmm, I think we have other instances of such, without gcc complaining. Iirc there was a bug in an early 5.0-rc which got fixed in the final 5.1.0. > Either bracket the (!driver_data->$X) or alter the logic itself. I'd prefer to avoid either change. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |