On Thursday, October 25, 2012 09:00:22 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 October 2012 02:44, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 of October 2012 13:15:58 Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> There were few sparse warnings due to mismatch of type on function arguments. > >> Two types were used u64 and cputime64_t. Both are actually u64, so use u64 only. > >> > >> Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This series appears to be based on your "cpufreq: governors: remove > > redundant code" patch that hasn't been applied yet. > > > > Please rebase it on top of linux-pm/linux-next or on top of v3.7-rc2, > > whichever is more convenient, and resend. > > Please apply it after applying the latest cpufreq: governors patch i have sent. Done. 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
