Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: governors: Remove code redundancy between governors

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 07:50:04 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > With the inclusion of following patches:
> > 
> > 9f4eb10 cpufreq: conservative: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary
> > 772b4b1 cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when necessary
> > 
> > code redundancy is introduced again. Get rid of it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Tested-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK

Fabio, Viresh, Shawn,

This time I was *really* confused as to what patches I was supposed to take,
from whom and in what order, so I applied a number of them in the order given
by patchwork.  That worked well enough, because (almost) all of them applied
for me without conflicts.  That said I would appreciate it if you could look
into the bleeding-edge branch of my tree and see if there's anything missing
or something that shouldn't be there (cpufreq-wise).

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/