From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] minor optimizations to ondemand governor Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 01:47:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20060630054701.GG32729@redhat.com> References: <20060628135217.E12989@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20060630053753.GE32729@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060630053753.GE32729@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Venkatesh Pallipadi Cc: alexey.y.starikovskiy@intel.com, cpufreq , Len Brown On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:37:53AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > This gave me rejects against Linus tree for some reason. > It's wrong anyway, as this file uses mutex's, and I'd rather > not have to rely on us pulling in mutex.h indirectly through > some other include file chain. > > I fixed it up by hand. One downside of this patch btw, is that it now increases the delta between ondemand and conservative a little, which makes applying the same patch to both a bit more painful. Care to do a resync sometime ? Longer term, I'd really like to see conservative & ondemand sharing more code as a separate helper .o file. They're similar in so many ways, it seems silly to duplicate so much code. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk