On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:52:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:52:21PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> @@ -456,8 +460,6 @@ static int sugov_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>
> >> out:
> >> mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> >> -
> >> - cpufreq_enable_fast_switch(policy);
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> fail:
> >> @@ -468,6 +470,10 @@ static int sugov_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >> mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> >>
> >> sugov_policy_free(sg_policy);
> >> +
> >> + disable_fast_switch:
> >> + cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy);
> >> +
> >> pr_err("initialization failed (error %d)\n", ret);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >
> > Argh, no indented labels please. Please fix the 3 that snuck in while
> > you're there.
>
> Well, you didn't tell me you didn't like them. :-)
>
> Anyway, I can fix this up easily enough.
>
> Any other concerns regarding the patch?
No, looked fine I think, as did the others.
