5 Jan
2015
5 Jan
'15
4:26 a.m.
On 4 January 2015 at 03:55, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@rjwysocki.net wrote:
Well, "can be" sounds more appropriate than "must be". It wouldn't hurt to leave it as is, after all.
It's the reverse. Because the cpu field is not necessary any more, it can be dropped *along* *with* cpufreq_stats_update_policy_cpu().
Modifying data structures is more important than dropping a trivial function and it should be described this way in the changelog.
Well, if you wrote it the way I suggested in the previous patch, it would be more obvious ...
Ack.