Re: [PATCH 16/21] cpuidle: avoid unnecessary kzalloc/free of struct cpuidle_device_kobj

2013-09-26 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 09/26/2013 08:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: On 26 September 2013 03:42, Daniel Lezcano wrote: On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: We always need to allocate struct cpuidle_device_kobj for all CPUs and so there is no real need to have a pointer to it inside struct cpuidle_device. This

Re: [PATCH 16/21] cpuidle: avoid unnecessary kzalloc/free of struct cpuidle_device_kobj

2013-09-25 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 26 September 2013 03:42, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> We always need to allocate struct cpuidle_device_kobj for all CPUs and so >> there >> is no real need to have a pointer to it inside struct cpuidle_device. >> >> This patch makes a object instance o

Re: [PATCH 16/21] cpuidle: avoid unnecessary kzalloc/free of struct cpuidle_device_kobj

2013-09-25 Thread Daniel Lezcano
On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > We always need to allocate struct cpuidle_device_kobj for all CPUs and so > there > is no real need to have a pointer to it inside struct cpuidle_device. > > This patch makes a object instance of struct cpuidle_device_kobj inside struct > cpuidle_devi

[PATCH 16/21] cpuidle: avoid unnecessary kzalloc/free of struct cpuidle_device_kobj

2013-09-21 Thread Viresh Kumar
We always need to allocate struct cpuidle_device_kobj for all CPUs and so there is no real need to have a pointer to it inside struct cpuidle_device. This patch makes a object instance of struct cpuidle_device_kobj inside struct cpuidle_device instead of a pointer. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar --