[PATCH] bus: arm-ccn: Fix cpu notifier priority
Jan Glauber
jan.glauber at caviumnetworks.com
Thu Mar 10 06:34:55 PST 2016
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 08:40:45AM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 13:14 +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > Fix cpu priority of notifier block that was erroneously set to
> > return value of next statement.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Glauber <jglauber at cavium.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c b/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > index 7082c72..d4a939e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/arm-ccn.c
> > @@ -1271,7 +1271,7 @@ static int arm_ccn_pmu_init(struct arm_ccn
> > *ccn)
> > * picked to have a chance to migrate events before perf is
> > notified.
> > */
> > ccn->dt.cpu_nb.notifier_call = arm_ccn_pmu_cpu_notifier;
> > - ccn->dt.cpu_nb.priority = CPU_PRI_PERF + 1,
> > + ccn->dt.cpu_nb.priority = CPU_PRI_PERF + 1;
> > err = register_cpu_notifier(&ccn->dt.cpu_nb);
> > if (err)
> > goto error_cpu_notifier;
>
> Damn, of course! I have never made (or heard about) such a typo before
> - I wish the compiler warned about it :-(
Hi Pawel,
actually my patch description is wrong. The compiler evaluates both
statements but does _not_ overwrite the value of the first statement
(would require parenthesis to do so). So it is just a cosmetical
change, feel free to drop it.
Sorry for the noise,
Jan
> By all means:
>
> Acked-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com>
> Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> # 4.2+
>
> Arnd, would you be still able to pick it up in this cycle?
>
> Thanks Both!
>
> Paweł
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list