On 04/03/2013 10:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Please always mention Version number and history. Not everybody
remembers what changed after last version.
Your right. I was rushing and forgot.
I need to develop the habit of adding some history to my git commits
when I amend them.
On 3 April
Please always mention Version number and history. Not everybody
remembers what changed after last version.
On 3 April 2013 20:33, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
> it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU.
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step in
that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the RCU for its read areas.
I don't see an easy wasy to protect the cpufreq_cpu_data structure with
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step in
that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the RCU for its read areas.
I don't see an easy wasy to protect the cpufreq_cpu_data structure with
Please always mention Version number and history. Not everybody
remembers what changed after last version.
On 3 April 2013 20:33, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections
On 04/03/2013 10:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Please always mention Version number and history. Not everybody
remembers what changed after last version.
Your right. I was rushing and forgot.
I need to develop the habit of adding some history to my git commits
when I amend them.
On 3 April
6 matches
Mail list logo
