Re: RFC: revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:48:36 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 26, 2013 02:29:40 PM Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 07/26/2013 02:27 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On 7/26/2013 11:13 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Could you try running the tests with just the repeat mode
> > >> stuff from commit 69a37bea excluded, but leaving the common
> > >> infrastructure and commit e11538?
> > >>
> > >
> > > personally I think we should go the other way around.
> > > revert the set entirely first, and now, and get our performance back
> > > to what it should be
> > >
> > > and then see what we can add back without causing the regressions.
> > > this may take longer, or be done in steps, and that's ok.
> > >
> > > the end point may well be the same... but we can then evaluate in the right
> > > direction.
> > 
> > Works for me. I have no objection to reverting both patches,
> > if the people planning to fix the code prefer that :)
> 
> OK, I'll queue up the reverts as fixes for 3.11-rc4.

So, the reverts are on the fixes-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree that you
can access at

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=fixes-next

However, they are not simple reverts as we've had some non-trivial changes on
top of those commits already, so I'd appreciate it a lot if somebody could
double check if I didn't break anything in them.

They are based on top of my master branch for now, but I'll rebase them on
3.11-rc3 when it's out.

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/