On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 07:59:54 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:36:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> > > There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
> > >
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 07:59:54 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:36:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
cpufreq_register_driver for
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:36:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> > There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
> > cpufreq_register_driver for example.
> >
> > But I believe
> > > @@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:36:17PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
cpufreq_register_driver for example.
But I believe
@@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static void
Argh, your right. I completely misread that section.
It'll take me a few days to respin and retest properly.
Thanks,
Nate
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [r...@sisk.pl]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:36 PM
To: Nathan Zimmer
Cc: viresh.ku...@linaro.org;
On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
> cpufreq_register_driver for example.
>
> But I believe
> > @@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static void __cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *data, bool sysfs)
> > {
> >
There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
cpufreq_register_driver for example.
But I believe
> @@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static void __cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy
> *data, bool sysfs)
> {
> if (!sysfs)
> kobject_put(>kobj);
> -
There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
cpufreq_register_driver for example.
But I believe
@@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static void __cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy
*data, bool sysfs)
{
if (!sysfs)
kobject_put(data-kobj);
-
On Monday, February 11, 2013 05:13:30 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
There are some spots that I need to give a much deeper review,
cpufreq_register_driver for example.
But I believe
@@ -196,7 +195,7 @@ static void __cpufreq_cpu_put(struct cpufreq_policy
*data, bool sysfs)
{
if
Argh, your right. I completely misread that section.
It'll take me a few days to respin and retest properly.
Thanks,
Nate
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [r...@sisk.pl]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:36 PM
To: Nathan Zimmer
Cc: viresh.ku...@linaro.org;
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 08:04:50 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 173
>
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 08:04:50 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com
---
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 02:21:11 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 08:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> >> In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu
> >> instead.
> >>
> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar
> >> Cc: "Rafael
On 6 February 2013 08:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>> In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
>>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer
>> ---
>>
On 6 February 2013 08:22, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 02:21:11 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 6 February 2013 08:22, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu
instead.
Cc: Viresh
On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 173
>
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 173 +-
1 file changed, 96 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
diff --git
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 173 +-
1 file
On 6 February 2013 07:34, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
Cc: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com
---
20 matches
Mail list logo
