On 13-06-17, 14:58, Tomasz Wilczynski wrote:
> This is my first patch so please bare with me...
No worries, we were just telling you about what's the right way..
> I am just a little
> confused. Does this mean that it is all right to leave the patch as it is,
> or should I still add the Fixes:
On 13-06-17, 14:58, Tomasz Wilczynski wrote:
> This is my first patch so please bare with me...
No worries, we were just telling you about what's the right way..
> I am just a little
> confused. Does this mean that it is all right to leave the patch as it is,
> or should I still add the Fixes:
On Monday, June 12, 2017 09:10:35 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-06-17, 17:28, Tomasz Wilczyński wrote:
> > Commit 27ed3cd2ebf4cd78b198be9758c538cdede36d8a ("cpufreq: conservative:
> > Fix the logic in frequency decrease checking") removed the 10 point
> > substraction when comparing the load
On Monday, June 12, 2017 09:10:35 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-06-17, 17:28, Tomasz Wilczyński wrote:
> > Commit 27ed3cd2ebf4cd78b198be9758c538cdede36d8a ("cpufreq: conservative:
> > Fix the logic in frequency decrease checking") removed the 10 point
> > substraction when comparing the load
On 11-06-17, 17:28, Tomasz Wilczyński wrote:
> Commit 27ed3cd2ebf4cd78b198be9758c538cdede36d8a ("cpufreq: conservative:
> Fix the logic in frequency decrease checking") removed the 10 point
> substraction when comparing the load against down_threshold but did not
> remove the related limit for the
On 11-06-17, 17:28, Tomasz Wilczyński wrote:
> Commit 27ed3cd2ebf4cd78b198be9758c538cdede36d8a ("cpufreq: conservative:
> Fix the logic in frequency decrease checking") removed the 10 point
> substraction when comparing the load against down_threshold but did not
> remove the related limit for the
6 matches
Mail list logo
