On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:17:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > I really recommend that you go out for lots of beer/wine NOW and > resume reading this mail when you recovered from that. > > I definitely appreciate your responsivness to feedback, but please go > back and read my reply to the previous version of this patch > carefully. You might eventually find out that I pointed you to another > redundant clk_get_rate() call in that code. > > After you did this, please go through the other patches in that series > and check how many new instances of clk_get_rate() calls you add down > the road. I did not even bother to look whether you cleaned it up > between v3 and v4, but I'm quite sure you did not. If I'm wrong, I owe > you a beer at the next conference.
Wow, you really want me to drink, do you? :) Actually, I did clean up. The other user you spotted that was previously introduced in the patch 4/10, and if you take a look at it, you'll see that it actually uses the rate variable like you suggested. Now, your mail made me realize that patch 10 introduced a direct clk_get_rate call, that I forgot to cleanup. After applying these patches, it's the only user left. I'll send a v5. Do you have any additionnal comments on those patches to avoid wasting more electrons? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
