[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161124045337.GB18417@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 05:53:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only
used in slow path
Firstly, please start changes to scheduler code with a verb. This title:
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: irq-work and mutex are only used in slow path
is totally inadequate as it's a statement that says nothing about the _change_.
What does the patch do? Does it add, remove, modify, fix or clean up?
* Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> Execute the irq-work specific initialization/exit code only when the
> fast path isn't available.
Is this an optimization? A correctness fix?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists