[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQKqsL0MCZCW3Rpi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:39:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
Hank <han.lin@...iatek.com>,
Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com>,
Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/uclamp: Set max_spare_cap_cpu even if
max_spare_cap is 0
* Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> I will wait for the maintainers to see if they would like a v5 to address
> the nitpicks or it's actually good enough and happy to pick this up. I
> think the commit messages explain the problem clear enough and doesn't
> warrant sending a new version. But happy to do so if there's insistence
> :-)
Yeah, please always do that: sensible review replies with actionable
feedback cause a semi-atomatic "mark this thread as read, there will be a
next version" reflexive action from maintainers, especially if a series is
in its 4th iteration already...
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists