[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253604359.8439.278.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:25:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [v5 RFC PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER (REDESIGN): Cleanup idle
power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and
introduce cpuidle to POWER.
Much better :-)
But I'm puzzled by all the per-cpu-ish-ness of the stuff. Why would you
need to register things on a per-cpu basis?
Also:
+ list_for_each(pos, &per_cpu(cpuidle_devices_list, cpu)) {
+ temp_dev = container_of(pos, struct cpuidle_device,
+ percpu_list[cpu]);
+ if (dev == temp_dev) {
+ list_del(&temp_dev->percpu_list[cpu]);
+ cpuidle_remove_state_sysfs(temp_dev);
+ }
+ }
Looks buggy, either you want to break out of the loop on dev ==
temp_dev, or you want to use list_for_each_safe().
--
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