From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752727AbaEBPPy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:58587 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752704AbaEBPPx (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 11:15:53 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] sched: idle: Encapsulate the code to compile it out Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 17:32:25 +0200 Message-ID: <8539453.ED7vQGf2Gc@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.14.0-rc7+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <53639F1B.5080000@linaro.org> References: <1398859263-7632-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <2782801.UzoMhgfu56@vostro.rjw.lan> <53639F1B.5080000@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > >>> > >>> 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.