From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752648Ab2GSSh1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:37:27 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:48481 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170Ab2GSShS (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:37:18 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Carsten Emde Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v3] Honor state disabling in the cpuidle ladder governor - with sanitizer Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:42:57 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.5.0-rc5+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Deepthi Dharwar , Len Brown , Kevin Hilman , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Linux PM mailing list References: <20120717185914.063547728@osadl.org> <5007EC10.1060508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5007F1F3.9090706@osadl.org> In-Reply-To: <5007F1F3.9090706@osadl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201207192042.57935.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thursday, July 19, 2012, Carsten Emde wrote: > Deepthi, > > >>> [..] > >>>> I could implement a sanitize mechanism of the ladder governor that > >>>> takes care the "disable" variables of all deeper states are set to 1, > >>>> if a state is disabled, and those of all lighter states are set to 0, > >>>> if a state is enabled. Do you wish me to do that? > >>> No, I dont think thats necessary, current code suffices it. > >>> The disable flag is knob we are giving to the user . So may be just > >>> document the intended use of disable flag working > >>> alongside design of ladder governor. > >> It's not necessary - but maybe better. Here comes v3 with a sanitizer. > >> Is this too ugly? > > The v2, with the documentation in place seems sufficient. > > Yup, this adds unnecessary fields which are not much use > > coz the same can be achieved with just disable flag check. > ok, let's take v2. > > > Also, any reason why the patch is being sent as an attachment ? > > Sending patches as an attachment is not a recommended practice. > Sorry. Can you please resend the version regarded as the current one? And please send it inline this time. Thanks, Rafael