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.lezc...@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. > I am open to any other suggestion. Please see the other message I've just sent. :-) -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/
