On 12 August 2014 03:41, Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Suggestions welcome. I think the current one explains the main point of this change. Atleast we need a s/going/go >> There is a down_read() present early in this routine and we better update this >> at that place only. > > > I would rather not. My v1 patch series was super refactored to allow a lot of reuse, etc. But you guys complained about the diffs being confusing (which was a valid point). > > Also, if we are talking about refactoring this, there's room for much better refactor at the end of the series. I will add a patch to the series to do the refactoring. The kind of change I am suggesting you can be done in the original patch only. What we told you in the earlier reviews was to break patches into meaningful sections instead of doing everything in a single patch. > That only runs if cpu != policy->cpu. This needs to run irrespective of that. Oh yes, correct. > You mean the log in the cover letter? Will do. Coverletter isn't the right place for mentioning such important things as it never gets commited. I was talking about the commit log. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
