On Thursday, October 03, 2013 08:27:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > As discussed earlier, Part I is now part of your linux-next branch and so > sending Part II for inclusion in bleeding-edge.. > > These are mostly oriented towards using generic .attr, .init(), .exit() and > .verify() and are so clubbed together. > > These doesn't conflict mostly with the other 11 cpufreq core cleanup patches > that are floating around: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg07920.html > > Only a minor conflict with following patch of that series for arm_big_little.c > file: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg07929.html > > You can resolve it easily, pretty straight forward. > > These are based of your linux-next branch: > ba93c78 Merge branch 'pm-cpufreq-next' into linux-next So I've just added this to bleeding-edge, but I have a couple complaints. First off, this is three patch sets in one. The first part is the generic .attr(), exit() and .verify() one, the second part is the duplicated initialization and the third one is about cpufreq_generic_init(). They really should have been posted and reviewed separately. And while I'm basically OK with the first and the third part, I'm concerned about the second one, because it has potential to introduce some subtle initialization issues (initializing something twice is not a bug per se, although it is inefficient, but failing to initialize that or initializing it with an incorrect value *is* a bug). Second, can you please make your own patch sets apply on top of each other next time? Besides, I'm not going to apply any patchset with more than 40 patches in it in one go any more unless I'm seriously convinced that this is the only way to go. Thanks! -- 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
