[V2,1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask

Message ID 376fd4d59723a89b40a0f12def43722874c43be8.1444924623.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Viresh Kumar Oct. 15, 2015, 4:05 p.m.
->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 <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 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);