linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 00/34] CPUFreq Cleanup Part III

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]

Date:	Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:25:45 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 Resend 00/34] CPUFreq Cleanup Part III

On 25 October 2013 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> Having considered that a bit I think that I'd prefer one patch doing all of
> these changes in one go (and with all applicable ACKs collected), one of the
> reasons being that if it is necessary to revert that stuff, whatever the
> reason, it will be much easier to do that with just one commit than with
> 34 of them.

With a similar reason I think the probability is more that a revert might
be required for individual drivers as they may need to switch back to
->target() instead of ->target_index() and so keeping them separate
might be better.

In case we need to revert all patches due to some breakage, we can
always do that in a single commit if required.

What do you say?
--
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/