On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So, with work_on_cpu() reimplementation just posted[1], we can do the
> following instead. Functionally it's about the same but less ugly.
> Ugly as it may be, I think the previous open coded version is better
> suited as a fix and for -stable. Thoughts?
I have to say, since the work_on_cpu() reimplementation seems to
seriously simplify the code, and removes more lines than it adds, and
makes this patch smaller than your original patch, I would personally
prefer this approach instead anyway.
It's what we want long-range, isn't it? And it's smaller and simpler.
Sure, it might be a *conceptually* bigger change, but since it's both
prettier and *practically* smaller, I do like it more. Even at this
stage of -rc (and even for backporting to -stable).
Can we get some quick testing of this two-patch series from the people
who saw the original K8 cpufreq issue? Duncan?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
