From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965409AbbJ1I25 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:28:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:36243 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965264AbbJ1I2x (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:28:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:58:49 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Saravana Kannan , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories Message-ID: <20151028082849.GE30039@ubuntu> References: <561FFDA7.3080903@codeaurora.org> <20151016055118.GR19018@linux> <4167825.7F75u7l572@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4167825.7F75u7l572@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28-10-15, 09:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > That's a bit too much IMO. It means "I have carried out a detailed review > of this patch and haven't found problems in it." How much responsibility > that implies is not so clear (evidently, there are differing opinions > regarding that). Right. I agree. -- viresh