[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160203065917.GY31828@vireshk>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:29:17 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in
__cpufreq_governor
On 02-02-16, 21:06, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I disagree. I think it's way better and simpler than this patch set. It also
> doesn't tie into cpufreq_governor.* which is a good thing IMO since it keeps
> things simpler for sched-dvfs too.
Lets discuss it further on the other thread ..
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists