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
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
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
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
--
4 matches
Mail list logo