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.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. > > 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. -- 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/
