Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 4/9] x86/intel_pstate: relocate the driver register function

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> 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