On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM, David Riley <davidri...@google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if there were any comments to this patch or if it was > picked up somewhere?
So I guess it got left in a bit of an ambiguous spot. The basic point of this test is to verify there is a sane counter time-based delay on freq shifting systems. You've addressed my only false positive concern, and so I'm not opposed to including it. However, there was the following discussion of why this test was wanted, and that was due to a system that didn't have a counter time based delay (instead using the loop delay) which was running into problems with cpufreq changes. That discussion wandered a bit, but the consensus was "don't do that". I sort of mixed the messages and associated that feedback with this patch as well, so my apologies. Just to be clear, it might be good to more clearly target this test as a validation to ensure systems don't use those bad configs. So If you want to resend with that extra context in the commit message, I'll go ahead and queue it (looking at 3.17) thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
