From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: governor implementations Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:27:01 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040430132701.GV15737@redhat.com> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB6001BFE986@scsmsx403.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB6001BFE986@scsmsx403.sc.intel.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk, Nickolai Zeldovich On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:37:52PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > Attached is a simple in-kernel CPU frequency governor. This has some > minor modification to the one that I had sent on this list, couple of > months back. I have one major concern about this patch. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,298,448.WKU.&OS=PN/6,298,448&RS=PN/6,298,448 What do Intel's legal dept have to say about this? Dave