From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932513AbWG0KMF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:12:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932542AbWG0KMF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:12:05 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36565 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932513AbWG0KME (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:12:04 -0400 Subject: Re: The ondemand CPUFreq code -- I hope the functionality stays From: Arjan van de Ven To: Miles Lane Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:12:01 +0200 Message-Id: <1153995121.3039.43.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 10:54 +0200, Miles Lane wrote: > Hello, > > It sounds, from comments in the discussion of CPU Hotplug locking > problems, as though you are considering deleting the ondemand CPUFreq > code. Hi, I think you misunderstood; we are considering removing the cpu hotplug locking (from cpufreq), not ondemand itself. ondemand itself is not a problem in itself, it's only the hotplug locking that's an issue (and that issue is bigger than just ondemand btw) Greetings, Arjan van de Ven -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com