On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 05:57:39 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:21:03PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it because that's the comment in the declaration:
cpumask_var_t cpus; /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */ cpumask_var_t related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */
And those two are already confusing as a starting point.
I will fix these comments with a patch of mine.
Great!
Anyway, this sounds fine to me. If you think this is useful I can send a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do further cleanup work on this code.
/me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind.
You can make it part of your patchsets v8.
I'm not sending a v8 as Rafael already asked for incremental, but I'll send a patch with that soon.
Yes, please.
Thanks, Rafael