On Thursday, October 25, 2012 08:59:11 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 October 2012 02:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 21:43:46 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 11:37:13 Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> > On 22 October 2012 14:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > On 20 October 2012 01:42, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Initially ondemand governor was written and then using its code conservative > >> > >> governor is written. It used a lot of code from ondemand governor, but copy of > >> > >> code was created instead of using the same routines from both governors. Which > >> > >> increased code redundancy, which is difficult to manage. > >> > >> > >> > >> This patch is an attempt to move common part of both the governors to > >> > >> cpufreq_governor.c file to come over above mentioned issues. > >> > >> > >> > >> This shouldn't change anything from functionality point of view. > >> > >> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > For everybody else, this patch is already pushed by Rafael in his linux-next > >> > branch. > >> > >> Well, not yet, although I'm going to do that. > > > > Or I would if it still applied. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't apply any > > more to my linux-next branch due to some previous changes in it. > > > > Care to rebase? > > Ahh.. I got confused by the following patch: > > commit 83a73f712f2275033b2dc7f5c664988a1823ebc7 > Author: viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Oct 23 01:28:05 2012 +0200 > > cpufreq: Move common part from governors to separate file, v2 > > Multiple cpufreq governers have defined similar get_cpu_idle_time_***() > routines. These routines must be moved to some common place, so that all > governors can use them. > > So moving them to cpufreq_governor.c, which seems to be a better place for > keeping these routines. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Actually, i should i have replied on this patch (and i forgot). I > wanted you to skip > this patch, as the latest patch already had this change. > > But now i see commits from others on cpufreq_governor.c file. > > Hmm... So you can keep your tree as it is and apply the attached > patch. It is the > same patch getting discussed in this thread. Just rebased over your latest next. I have applied this patch only because of the fixes on top of it. It broke kernel compliation due to some missing EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLs in cpufreq_governor.c, so I woulnd't have applied it otherwise. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
