linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpufreq: Remove unused function __cpufreq_driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:35:27 +0300
From:	Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	" H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpufreq: Remove unused function
 __cpufreq_driver_getavg

I think you are right. I will reorder 2/3 and 3/3 with the change you suggested.

Thanks,
Stratos

Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:

>On 4 June 2013 20:36, Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 08:19 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> Should this be done in 3/3 ?
>>>
>>
>> acpi-cpufreq does not use mperf after 2/3. Why should we compile it with
>> CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ?
>> Do you want me to move the change in 3/3?
>
>I somehow feel now that 3/3 should come before 2/3 and then this change
>should be merged into it. And at the end we can have this patch as 3/3..
>
>What do you say? core should go last and users/drivers must go first.