On Fri 2009-07-03 12:10:15, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Hi Pavel,
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 08:33:39 Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any
Hi Pavel,
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 08:33:39 Pavel Machek wrote:
On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
-
On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
- rip it out.
CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 01:39:12 Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:14:52PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Greg KH (g...@kroah.com) wrote:
I don't see the patch below in Linus's tree. If it's there, what is the
git commit id?
As I pointed out in an earlier reply,
I don't see the patch below in Linus's tree. If it's there, what is the
git commit id?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 04:01:24PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any
* Greg KH (g...@kroah.com) wrote:
I don't see the patch below in Linus's tree. If it's there, what is the
git commit id?
As I pointed out in an earlier reply, this patch is bogus and adds racy
data structure updates. It should not be merged.
Venkatesh is working on a proper fix.
Mathieu
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 07:14:52PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Greg KH (g...@kroah.com) wrote:
I don't see the patch below in Linus's tree. If it's there, what is the
git commit id?
As I pointed out in an earlier reply, this patch is bogus and adds racy
data structure updates.
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
- rip it out.
CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger tr...@suse.de
---
* Thomas Renninger (tr...@suse.de) wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
- rip it out.
CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi venkatesh.pallip...@intel.com
...@cs.helsinki.fi;
kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org; da...@redhat.com; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes
from ondemand and conservative governors
* Thomas Renninger (tr...@suse.de) wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing
On Thursday 25 June 2009 04:25:52 pm Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Thomas Renninger (tr...@suse.de) wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
- rip it out.
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:17:09 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2009 04:25:52 pm Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* Thomas Renninger (tr...@suse.de) wrote:
Comment from Venkatesh:
...
This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I
could't think of any
12 matches
Mail list logo
