On 28-10-15, 09:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That's a bit too much IMO. It means "I have carried out a detailed review
> of this patch and haven't found problems in it." How much responsibility
> that implies is not so clear (evidently, there are differing opinions
> regarding that).
Right. I
On Friday, October 16, 2015 11:21:18 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-10-15, 12:25, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > Btw, does a Review-by have an implicit Acked-by?
>
> I have attended a session at Linaro Connect where this was discussed
> and the answer was:
>
> Acked-by: is more of a general
On 28-10-15, 09:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That's a bit too much IMO. It means "I have carried out a detailed review
> of this patch and haven't found problems in it." How much responsibility
> that implies is not so clear (evidently, there are differing opinions
> regarding that).
Right. I
On Friday, October 16, 2015 11:21:18 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-10-15, 12:25, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > Btw, does a Review-by have an implicit Acked-by?
>
> I have attended a session at Linaro Connect where this was discussed
> and the answer was:
>
> Acked-by: is more of a general
On 15-10-15, 12:25, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Btw, does a Review-by have an implicit Acked-by?
I have attended a session at Linaro Connect where this was discussed
and the answer was:
Acked-by: is more of a general agreement from the person that he is
fine with the patch, but he might not have
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:25:27 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
> > CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
> > and all other CPUs had links to
On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
and all other CPUs had links to it. That also made the code a bit
complex as we need to take care of moving
The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
and all other CPUs had links to it. That also made the code a bit
complex as we need to take care of moving the sysfs directory if the CPU
containing the
The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
and all other CPUs had links to it. That also made the code a bit
complex as we need to take care of moving the sysfs directory if the CPU
containing the
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:25:27 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
> > CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
> > and all other CPUs had links to
On 15-10-15, 12:25, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Btw, does a Review-by have an implicit Acked-by?
I have attended a session at Linaro Connect where this was discussed
and the answer was:
Acked-by: is more of a general agreement from the person that he is
fine with the patch, but he might not have
On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
The cpufreq sysfs interface had been a bit inconsistent as one of the
CPUs for a policy had a real directory within its sysfs 'cpuX' directory
and all other CPUs had links to it. That also made the code a bit
complex as we need to take care of moving
12 matches
Mail list logo
