On 18/05/2015 19:18, George Dunlap wrote
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Wang, Wei W
> wrote:
> >> > Do you have any comments on this version?
> >>
> >> Eventually I will. But as recently noted elsewhere, there are way too
> >> many things needing review right now, and I've got things other tha
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>> > Do you have any comments on this version?
>>
>> Eventually I will. But as recently noted elsewhere, there are way too many
>> things needing review right now, and I've got things other than reviews to
>> do,
>> and as long as others (read:
On 15/05/2015 15:17, Jan Beulich wrote
> >>> On 15.05.15 at 08:50, wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> >> On 28/04/2015 16:37, Wei Wang wrote
>
> This looks wrong - the mail you seem to reply to is dated May 13th in my
> inbox. While I realize that I never got to reply to the v1 series (which may
> indeed h
>>> On 15.05.15 at 08:50, wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
>> On 28/04/2015 16:37, Wei Wang wrote
This looks wrong - the mail you seem to reply to is dated May 13th
in my inbox. While I realize that I never got to reply to the v1
series (which may indeed have been around the date quoted above)
pinging a patch
Hi Jan,
> On 28/04/2015 16:37, Wei Wang wrote
> > Changes:
> > *NO.1 The intel_pstate driver can be controlled via two ways:
> > A. min_perf_pct and max_perf_pct
> >The user directly adjusts min_perf_pct and max_perf_pct to get what
> >they want. For example, if min_perf_pct=max_perf_pct=6
Appologies if you received multiple emails of this patch. Just couldn't see it
showing up in the mailinglist.
Best,
Wei
On 28/04/2015 16:37, Wei Wang wrote
> Changes:
> *NO.1 The intel_pstate driver can be controlled via two ways:
> A. min_perf_pct and max_perf_pct
>The user directly adjust
