On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 01:17:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I really recommend that you go out for lots of beer/wine NOW and
> > resume reading this mail when you recovered from that.
> >
> > I definitely appreciate your responsivness to feedback, but please go
> > back and read my reply to the previous version of this patch
> > carefully. You might eventually find out that I pointed you to another
> > redundant clk_get_rate() call in that code.
> >
> > After you did this, please go through the other patches in that series
> > and check how many new instances of clk_get_rate() calls you add down
> > the road. I did not even bother to look whether you cleaned it up
> > between v3 and v4, but I'm quite sure you did not. If I'm wrong, I owe
> > you a beer at the next conference.
>
> Wow, you really want me to drink, do you? :)
Taking a break really helps :)
> Actually, I did clean up. The other user you spotted that was previously
> introduced in the patch 4/10, and if you take a look at it, you'll see
> that it actually uses the rate variable like you suggested.
Ah, missed that :)
> Now, your mail made me realize that patch 10 introduced a direct
> clk_get_rate call, that I forgot to cleanup. After applying these
> patches, it's the only user left.
So no beer for you!
> I'll send a v5. Do you have any additionnal comments on those patches to
> avoid wasting more electrons?
No, I just wanted to make you aware that sending patches faster than I
can review them is not really helpful, unless the fast new version is
perfect.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
