Ok, I'll rebase and retest from linux-next then. ________________________________________ From: Rafael J. Wysocki [rjw@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:13 AM To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Nathan Zimmer; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shawn Guo; linaro-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 03:28:30 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I actually don't agree with that, becuase the Nathan's apprach shows the > > reasoning that leads to the RCU introduction quite clearly. So if you > > don't have technical problems with the patchset, I'm going to take it as is. > > Great!! > > Okay.. I don't have any technical problems with it, i reviewed most of it > carefully. The only pending thing is rebase on linux-next, after that i can > give my ack for it. Yes, it would be great if it were rebased and retested. 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
