linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/cpufreq: Reorganize the cpufreq files

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: <CAJZ5v0ia6jc80=xTkOSZofhmx80UXn2Kv-mPJ6B4JZ-Sc75kBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:06:18 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        ionela.voinescu@....com,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/cpufreq: Reorganize the cpufreq files

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:54 AM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2018 11:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:36 AM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> It was suggested to set the scene for the PM components in the
> >> scheduler code organization in the recent discussion about making the
> >> scheduler aware of the capacity capping from the thermal framework.
> >>
> >> Move the cpufreq files into its own directory as suggested at:
> >>
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/18/353
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/18/408
> >
> > Fair enough, but do we need to do that right now?
>
> I'm not planning to do more code reorg than this patch right now. Up to
> you to decide if you are willing to take them.

The SPDX one certainly is applicable, but I'm not sure about the other one TBH.

Why don't you add the SPDX IDs to those files as they are for now?