Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Friday, May 02, 2014 03:35:23 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 02:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 02, 2014 10:52:27 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 05/01/2014 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 02:01:02 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>> Encapsulate the large portion of cpuidle_idle_call inside another
> >>>> function so when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n, the code will be compiled out.
> >>>> Also that is benefitial for the clarity of the code as it removes
> >>>> a nested indentation level.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>> Well, this conflicts with
> >>>
> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4071541/
> >>>
> >>> which you haven't commented on and I still want cpuidle_select() to be able to
> >>> return negative values because of
> >>>
> >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4089631/
> >>>
> >>> (and I have one more patch on top of these two that requires this).
> >>>
> >>> Any ideas how to resolve that?
> >>
> >> I don't think we have a big conflict. If Peter takes your patches before
> >> than mines then I will refresh and resend them.
> >
> > Actually, I was planning the merge them myself, because they are more cpuidle
> > than the scheduler, but either way would be fine.
> 
> Well I have some patches for the scheduler which will need these 
> modifications. Is it possible to merge them throw a common branch to be 
> shared between sched and pm ?

That would be perfectly fine by me, but I'm not sure what Ingo and Peter think
about that.

I can set up a branch with sched/idle/cpuidle changes.


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