On 12/28/2014 11:41 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 19 December 2014 at 07:45, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Thursday, December 18, 2014 05:30:17 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Rafael,
I finally started looking at how to make cpufreq-core somewhat less complex with respect to locking, its state machine, etc..
The first thing I had to get into was cpufreq-stats and so this series. Mostly cleanups to make things better..
Please see if they make any sense at all.
I know we are at Merge window right now and you wouldn't apply it even to linux-next. So, if they look fine, please don't hesitate in dropping a mail to confirm they look fine, so that I can send the next set of cleanups atleast for reviews. We can get these applied one by one then, once we are a bit confident of them.
Well, the timing is pretty bad for various reasons. For one, this isn't 3.19 material, so I'm not even going to look at it tomorrow and I'm officially on vacation from Monday onward pretty much through the first half of January.
If I have some time and really nothing else to do, I'll have a look at it, but I can't promise anything.
It would be good if you could ask poeple to have a look at it and give comments in the meantime.
Prarit, any more comments about this series ?
Latest stuff is here: git://git.linaro.org/people/viresh.kumar/linux.git cpufreq/stats/cleanups
Hey Viresh, seems fine to me. I do want to again point out the issue with the sysfs removal but fixing that type of issue is out-of-scope for this patchset.
Reviewed-by: Prarit Bhargava prarit@redhat.com
P.
-- viresh