From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9 Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:44:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4156001.9630YezyCK@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <51159391.2020002@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Dirk Brandewie , valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, artem.savkov@gmail.com, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, Nathan Zimmer On Saturday, February 09, 2013 07:40:26 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 9 February 2013 05:38, Dirk Brandewie wrote: > > On 02/08/2013 03:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > >> On Friday, February 08, 2013 09:02:37 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> > >>> On Friday, February 08, 2013 08:06:52 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 8 February 2013 18:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> So as I said, please rework the fixes on top of > >>>>> linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I already did. Please check for-rafael branch > >>> > >>> > >>> Cool. This is the one I'm supposed to apply, then? > >> > >> > >> OK, applied to bleeding-edge. Hopefully it will be build-tested over the > >> weekend and I can move it to linux-next. > >> > >> I dropped the rwlock/RCU patches from Nathan, though, because I had some > >> doubts about the correctness of the RCU one and the rwlock one alone would > >> conflict with your further changes. > > As soon as i read Rafael's mail, i realized Dirk's patch might be broken > and immediately i saw your mail :) > > @Rafael: Sorry for not reviewing Nathan's patch well. I didn't knew much about > RCU then. I am going through its lwn articles now ;) No biggie, I overlooked that myself first time. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.