[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081023151002.GA15886@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:10:02 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 35/35] x86: clean up speedctep-centrino and reduce
cpumask_t usage From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 23 October 2008 13:09:01 Mike Travis wrote:
> > > 1) The #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU seems unnecessary these days.
> > > 2) The loop can simply skip over offline cpus, rather than creating a tmp
> > > mask.
> > > 3) set_mask is set to either a single cpu or all online cpus in a
> > > policy. Since it's just used for set_cpus_allowed(), any offline cpus in a
> > > policy don't matter, so we can just use cpumask_of_cpu() or the
> > > policy->cpus.
> >
> > Note that this cleanup stands alone; it's just that I read this code I
> > couldn't help but tidy it up.
> >
> > Ingo: do you just want to put this in your normal tree for sending to
> > Linus?
>
> hm, cpufreq stuff belongs into davej's tree.
>
> i skipped #34 and #35 for now, we can live without them, correct?
If those patches are dependant upon the others, I can live with them
going through another tree. There's nothing pending for speedstep-centrino
in cpufreq anyway.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists