From 0998a03a3a4d35290993f86ffed0e311e8dd78f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Viresh Kumar Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:35:21 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask ->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 Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- 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); } -- GitLab