->related_cpus is empty at this point of time and copying ->cpus to it or orring ->related_cpus with ->cpus would result in the same value. But cpumask_copy makes it rather clear.
Reviewed-by: Saravana Kannan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> --- 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 8701dc559850..16b9e811ff01 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ 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); /* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */ cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask); } -- 2.4.0 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
