On 11/10/2013, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I've just added this to bleeding-edge, but I have a couple complaints. Thanks.. > 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. They were posted and reviewed separately earlier.. Only this time I have merged them together for applying.. > 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). I agree.. Lets see if it breaks anything... I will get it fixed as soon as possible.. (BTW, there was a fixup for the last series that you missed to apply: fixup! cpufreq: sa11x0: Expose frequency table) > Second, can you please make your own patch sets apply on top of each other > next time? I wasn't sure if you are going to apply the 11 patch patchset before this one or not.. and hence have applied it directly on top of linux-next.. > 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. Okay.. I will take care of this next time.. -- 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
