On Thursday, September 12, 2013 02:51:58 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12 September 2013 12:46, Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
That sounds good! Even the naming is much better, it conveys the intent clearly.
Folded below change in my patch (attached):
Please resend. And I honestly don't think that [1-3/5] are fixes and [4/5] is not needed any more.
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index b556d46..23f5845 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1111,7 +1111,7 @@ static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int ret;
/* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */
cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(policy->cpus));
cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu)); /* Don't touch sysfs files during light-weight tear-down */ if (frozen)
--