[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190314110318.on5bfau32tjsxnuz@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:33:18 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each
policy
On 14-03-19, 11:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
> cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively. That
> would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.
Right, that's what I also thought after your previous email. Will pass
the policy pointer instead.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists