On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 05:57:39 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:21:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it > > > because that's the comment in the declaration: > > > > > > cpumask_var_t cpus; /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */ > > > cpumask_var_t related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */ > > > > > > And those two are already confusing as a starting point. > > > > I will fix these comments with a patch of mine. > > Great! > > > > > > Anyway, this sounds fine to me. If you think this is useful I can send > > > a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do > > > further cleanup work on this code. > > > > > > /me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind. > > > > You can make it part of your patchsets v8. > > I'm not sending a v8 as Rafael already asked for incremental, but I'll > send a patch with that soon. Yes, please. 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
