On Thursday, January 31, 2013 07:50:04 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > With the inclusion of following patches: > > > > 9f4eb10 cpufreq: conservative: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > 772b4b1 cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary > > > > code redundancy is introduced again. Get rid of it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Hi, > > Tested-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> OK Fabio, Viresh, Shawn, This time I was *really* confused as to what patches I was supposed to take, from whom and in what order, so I applied a number of them in the order given by patchwork. That worked well enough, because (almost) all of them applied for me without conflicts. That said I would appreciate it if you could look into the bleeding-edge branch of my tree and see if there's anything missing or something that shouldn't be there (cpufreq-wise). 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
