From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:56:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] Consolidate cpuidle functionality Message-Id: <87ty1ix1vg.fsf@ti.com> List-Id: References: <1332274969-15782-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <201203202158.08042.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> <873992zy5u.fsf@ti.com> <201203202305.37952.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <201203202305.37952.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:05:37 +0000") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Maybe it's time that drivers/cpuidle gets a maintainer. With lots of >> discussions of scheduler changes that affect load estimation, I suspect >> we're all going to have a bit of CPUidle work to do in the >> not-so-distant future. > > Hmm, according to the script, you are the maintainer ;-) doh, I knew I should've kept quiet :/ > $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > Kevin Hilman (commit_signer:8/10=80%) > Len Brown (commit_signer:7/10p%) > Trinabh Gupta (commit_signer:4/10@%) > Arjan van de Ven (commit_signer:4/10@%) > Deepthi Dharwar (commit_signer:4/10@%) > > While I realize that the get_maintainers.pl is not the final word, > you could be the acting cpuidle maintainer for this merge window > and send the pull request. Not exactly the outcome I was hoping for (I have enough stuff to look after at the moment.)=20 However, if you think it would help and won't be seen as a take over attempt (I don't want to maintain CPUidle), I can possibly do it for this merge window. =20 Before doing that though, I'll need give this series a final once over before I'm willing to send a potentially flame-attracting pull request. Kevin