Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq Fixes for 3.9

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Friday, February 08, 2013 12:33:14 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 07, 2013 03:57:42 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> > 
> > This is another unplanned patchset for all the platforms that i broke. :)
> > 
> > Okay, there are two important fixes (1 & 4) and two general cleanups (2 & 3). I
> > hope most of the issues would be resolved by these and we would be able to push
> > clean cpufreq core into 3.9.
> > 
> > I have pushed them in my for-rafael branch at:
> > 
> > http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/vireshk/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-rafael
> > 
> > @Artem & Valdis: Please test them and reply with your Tested-by's (in case they
> > work :) ).
> > 
> > Viresh Kumar (4):
> >   cpufreq: governors: Fix WARN_ON() for multi-policy platforms
> >   cpufreq: Remove unused HOTPLUG_CPU code
> >   cpufreq: Create a macro for unlock_policy_rwsem{read,write}
> >   cpufreq: Fix locking issues
> > 
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c          | 126 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |  32 ++++++----
> >  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)
> 
> I should have done that before, sorry about it.
> 
> Can you please rework this series on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq and
> try to avoid introducing new issues this time?
> 
> If this works, we'll rebase all of the other new material on top of it,
> if possible.

I've dropped the pm-cpufreq-next branch from linux-next now, BTW.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.