On 12 August 2014 03:41, Saravana Kannan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Suggestions welcome. I think the current one explains the main point of this > change. Atleast we need a s/going/go >> There is a down_read() present early in this routine and we better update >> this >> at that place only. > > > I would rather not. My v1 patch series was super refactored to allow a lot of > reuse, etc. But you guys complained about the diffs being confusing (which > was a valid point). > > Also, if we are talking about refactoring this, there's room for much better > refactor at the end of the series. I will add a patch to the series to do the > refactoring. The kind of change I am suggesting you can be done in the original patch only. What we told you in the earlier reviews was to break patches into meaningful sections instead of doing everything in a single patch. > That only runs if cpu != policy->cpu. This needs to run irrespective of that. Oh yes, correct. > You mean the log in the cover letter? Will do. Coverletter isn't the right place for mentioning such important things as it never gets commited. I was talking about the commit log. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
