[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1249570998.32113.499.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:03:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs.
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:03 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> This was the
> main objection to Venki's deepest sleep state for offline cpus patch.
Well, my main objection was that is was a single raw function pointer
without any management layer around it.
We have the exact same mess with the idle routine - and that has bitten
us in the past.
--
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