linux-kernel - Re: [v10 PATCH 2/9]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c

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

Message-Id: <200912071117.58163.duwe@lst.de>
Date:	Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:17:57 +0100
From:	Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
To:	arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [v10 PATCH 2/9]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c

On Sunday 06 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:

> Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle
> because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't
> want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The discussion related to
> that could be found here http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/233

And BenH has sketched how it should be done on ppc, in that thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/624 AFAIS this comment is still valid for v10.

Not only I would like to understand what is the conceptual idea behind the 
other changes. Nothing wrong with cleanups, but there's got to be a purpose 
and benefits.

	Torsten
--
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/