[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1603621.USQfKr7LjW@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 11:16:13 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com,
charles.garcia-tobin@....com, arvind.chauhan@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.10-rc2
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 07:45:45 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 May 2013 05:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > Well, I actually meant "can you please verify your belief?". :-)
> >
> > And that's because I'm wondering why the zero-day build testing doesn't
> > catch this problem. Apparently, it doesn't build .configs with cpufreq
> > governors configured as modules, although I believe it does test
> > "make allmodconfig" for a couple of architectures at least. What gives?
>
> My assumption was wrong. Actually cpufreq_governor.c is never compiled
> as module, but cpufreq_ondemand is...
>
> And this routine isn't used from cpufreq_ondemand but cpufreq_governor..
>
> But we were lucky that we didn't get a error here and EXPORT_SYMBOL
> is still required :)
Although not necessarily 3.10 material I suppose?
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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